Bizdata - MN Report Eec

EDUCATION EVALUATION CENTER
MECS EEC WORLD BANK
RURAL EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
MONGOLIAN NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF

PRIMARY EDUCATION MATHEMATICS
AND READING
Ulaanbaatar city
2008
MONGOLIAN NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND READING 1

EDUCATION EVALUATION CENTER OF MONGOLIA
MONGOLIAN NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF

PRIMARY EDUCATION MATHEMATICS AND
READING
Ulaanbaatar city
2008

CONTENT
i. Preface
ii. Brief conclusions of the National assessment of mathematics and reading
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION OF NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND READING
Ts. Unurbayan, Ts. Erdenetsetseg, M. Boldsaikhan, D. Erdene, S. Bat-Erdene, D. Altangerel, D. Ganbold,

O. Munkhchandman
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Needs of the assessment
1.3 Administration of the national assessment
1.4 Target population of the national assessment
1.5 Research methodology
1.6 Items and questionnaires development methodology
1.7 Booklets design
1.8 Item scoring method
CHAPTER 2. FINDINGS AND RESULTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF MATEMATICS AND

READING
D. Monkhor, Ts. Unurbayan, Kelvin Gregory, Ts. Erdenetsetseg, M. Boldsaikhan, M. Ganbat, D. Erdene
2.1 Summary of the findings and results of the national assessment

2.2 Findings and Results of Mathematics
2.3 Findings and Results of Reading
2.4 Results of study in mathematics and reading of Kazakh students
2.5 Items analysis in mathematics
2.6 Items analysis in reading
2.7 Skills levels in mathematics
2.8 Benchmarks in mathematics
2.9 Skills levels in reading
2.10 Benchmarks in reading
2.11 Performance of international items
CHAPTER 3. FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT
Ts. Erdenetsetseg, M. Boldsaikhan, J. Bileg-Orshikh, M. Gantuya
3.1 Factors associated with location and population

3.2 Factors associated with learning environment (external and internal)
3.3 Other factors having impact on mathematics and reading
CHAPTER 4. METHODOLOGY AND APPROACHES OF THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT
M. Boldsaikhan, Ts. Oyunsuren, Kelvin Gregory
4.1 Sampling
4.2 Methodology of the survey
4.3 Creation of information databases, software programs applied
4.4 Training seminars and workshops

4.5 Quality control/monitoring
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Ts. Unurbayan, D. Monkhor, Ts. Oyunsaikhan, Ts. Erdenetsetseg, M. Boldsaikhan
5.1 Learning achievement of maths and reading

5.2 What are influencing learning achievement?
5.3 How learning achievement can be improved?
5.4 Recommendations
CHAPTER 6. ANNEXES
6.1 Research team of members

6.2 Glossary
6.3 References
6.4 Web
6.5 Photos

ABBREVIATIONS
DPSE - Department of Primary and Secondary Education
MECS – Ministry of Education, Culture and Science
EEC – Education Evaluation Center
SSE – School of Secondary Education
NITP - National Information Technology Park
SOLO taxonomy - Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes1
PSE- Preschool education
READ - Rural Education and Development Project
UNICEF - The United Nations Children’s Fund
UNESCO - United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization
IEA - The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement
IRT- Item Response Theory
OECD - Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
PIRLS - Progress in International Reading Literacy Study
PISA- Program for International Student Assessment
SPSS - Statistical Package for Social Sciences
TIMSS - Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
1
See glossary of terms
i. PREFACE
The World Bank has been providing continuous financial and various kinds of support and assistance
towards enlightening and educating the children of Mongolia. From 2007 to 2009, a substantial part of the
assistance provided within the scope of the “Rural Education and Development” project implemented by MECS,
with funding provided by the World Bank, has been presented to the Education Evaluation Center (EEC). The EEC
has conducted the national assessment with two stages during the period of 2004-2005. Based on the experience of
organizing the national survey on mathematics and science lessons at the primary education level, the purpose of
the study was to utilize the findings to improve the quality of study. In the study, 8,553 individuals were included
in the questionnaire, and 5,920 students completed the tasks. For the study, 6,550 surveying booklets were printed;
an information database was created to be disseminated to the public. This was carried out with over 250 teacher’s
hard work and effort. By conducting the study, we were able to determine the influences of the internal and
external factors of learning, the general population, residential situations, and conditions to study according to
internationally accepted methodologies of mathematics and reading for primary education students nationwide.
The purpose of the study was to increase the technical capacity, enhance the capacity of human resources
to adjust our country’s characteristics to a new method of classifying the example items by the levels of assessment
standard, benchmarking, scoring, creating questions, sampling method, and software for assessment of practical
works of learning achievement in the future.
The “National Assessment of Primary Education Mathematics and Reading” was aimed at identifying
levels of mathematics and reading and reveal factors that influence these skills, and furthermore, to use study
findings in developing policies. This report conveys how the study has been administered nationwide, its findings,
and recommendations.
Finally, I would like to extend my deepest gratitude for the provision of invaluable financial and necessary
technical assistance and support in conducting this study to the World Bank and MECS, especially to the following
individuals: Dr. R. Bat-Erdene, READ National Director, Head of Education Department of MECS; Mr. Cristobal
Ridao Kano and Mr. Charles Abelmann, Former READ Task Team Leaders; Dr. Kin Bing; Lead Education
Specialist at World Bank, READ Task team leader; Ms. Marguerite Clark, Senior Specialist, WB; and Mr. Kelvin
Gregory, International Consultant and Professor of Flinders University, Australia for the provision of advisory
services during the course of the project. Additionally, I would like to express special thanks should go to the
Heads and methodologists of Aimag Education and Culture Departments, secondary schools administrations,
teachers and parents for their cooperation and provision of valuable assistance and support for the successful
organization of the assessment at the national level. Finally yet importantly, we are thankful to the members of the
EEC Project Team and staff of the Education Evaluation Center for organizing and administering the national
assessment.
TS. OYUNSAIKHAN
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION EVALUATION CENTER

ii. BRIEF SUMMARY OF FINDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF

MATHEMATICS AND READING
The purpose of the study is to research Mongolian elementary education math and reading
performance, using international standardized testing methods; to determine how location, population,
curricular and extracurricular learning environments influence learning; and to use the results to improve
the quality of education in Mongolia.
The study was organized in two stages. The first stage was a pilot study, completed in September,
2007. The main study was then conducted in April and May of 2008.
For the main study, 4,750 students from 166 schools were chosen from among 46,067 5th graders
nationwide during the school year of 2007-2008. Also, the administrators of 165 schools, 166 lead
teachers, and 1,944 parents and guardians took part in the study. One of the objectives of the study was to
compare performance of Kazak and Mongolian language speaking students. Accordingly, 36 Kazak
language schools in Bayan-Ulgii aimag and one middle school in Khovd aimag were included in the
study.
The Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO taxonomy) was used for test development.
Each test-taker had their own testing materials. Each test section had its own code. The RASH method
was used to check test validity. Test performances were calculated and entered into the MySchool
database program created for the study. International testing questions comprised of 14.2-36.3 percent of
the total test questions. A weighted method was used to choose team members for the study. Training
seminars were conducted for team members, meetings were held for parents and guardians who took part
in the study, interviews were conducted with teachers, examining the difficulties of the test, and their
suggestions and recommendations were incorporating into the study.
Test scores of students who took part in the study are as follows: Math, 45.4%; Reading, 41.2%;
with an overall average of 42.8%. The average score for urban students were 13.6% higher in math, and
10.1% higher in reading compared to rural students. Rural school students’ performance was 23.6% lower
in math, and 18.7% in reading compared to urban students. This indicates that the quality of education
can be correlated to location.
There were 3 basic versions of the study booklets with 9 variations. The math section consists of
28 questions of which 22 or 78.6% were multiple-choice, and the remaining 6 or 21.4% were open-ended
questions. The reading section consisted of 35 questions of which 26 or 74.3% were multiple-choice, and
the remaining 9 or 25.7% were open-ended questions. The average score for multiple-choice questions
was 46.7%, and the average score for open-ended questions was 36.3%. For 12 ‘fill-in-the-blank’,
‘complete’, ‘compare’, ‘create’ and ‘draw’ open ended questions, the average score was 4.1 or 34.6%.
88.9% of students scored lower than 60% on the test. This indicates that elementary school students are
not proficient in ‘fill-in-the-blank’, ‘complete’, ‘compare’, ‘create’ and ‘draw’ types of questions.
Test analysis was completed using Item Response Theory (IRT), which suggests that there were
no unqualified, too difficult, or too easy questions. The average scores for Math and Reading were
normally distributed.
Graph 1. General Score Distribution
Scaled Score
Influences on math and reading, found after interviewing teachers, administrators, students,
parents and guardians, and head teacher:
 According to the results presents that the average score for math was 45.4% and the average score
for reading was 48%. This indicates that students’ knowledge is below international standard
requirements.
 According to the results presents that the performance of open ended questions were lower than
the performance of multiple choice questions.
 Students performed poorly on question of analysis, comparison, analogy, and reasoning, as well as
with questions of creativity and organization. This indicates that students’ creative thinking
abilities need further development.
 Students who scored high on the math test also scored high on the reading test. This indicates that
math and reading influence the quality of education the most and are correlated with one another.
Students who do well on both tests have a higher chance of performing well in other subjects.
 Geometry and Algebra test performance results were lower than Statistics and Probability scores.
Writing scores were lower than Listening Comprehension scores and Reading Comprehension
scores.
 Students studying in Kazak language have lower academic performance than students studying in
Mongolian language schools.
 Students scored below average on questions from international standardized tests.
 Classes with over 35 students scored lower than classes with an average of 35 students. So the
number of students in a class has affects academic performance.
 Students who share a desk with one other student scored higher than those sharing with 2 or more
students in both rural and urban areas. This illustrated that students should not be placed on a
desk alone or with 3 or more students.
 Students who live in a dormitory or with foster families scored lower than students living at home.
 Students who have a home library had greater academic performance.

 When students have difficulties understanding the lesson or subject matter they suffer from
psychological pressure which leads them feel discouraged to learn and consider dropping out of
school.
 Giving creative homework based on student’s knowledge, comprehension, and needs, providing
significant amount of time to completing the tasks and then evaluating the performance has a
positive influence on academic performance.
 5.8% of students had some type of disability, with vision accounting for the majority of the
disabilities. Students with vision, hearing, and mobility impairment can study with the general
population, but more research is needs to be conducted in terms of students with mental
disabilities.
 Students who entered school at the age of 6 demonstrated higher academic performances
compared to those who entered at the age of 7 or 8.
 Students who complete their homework independently demonstrated higher academic
performance.
 Students’ academic performance depends on teacher preparation.
 Teachers who prepare for class by Subject, Section and Unit, and Teachers who seek consultation
have greater influence on their students’ academic performance.
 Academic performance can depend on teacher’s treatment of and respect for their students.
Therefore, teachers need to see their students as individuals, and need training in forming
relationships with students.
 Teachers in the elementary education system that use tools they create, or those created by their
students have a greater positive influence on students’ academic performance than those who use
computer and LCD equipment.
 Teacher’s level of education has a positive correlation with students’ performance.
 The number of years of teaching experience of teachers has no influence on students’ academic
performance.
 Teacher training and seminars do not directly influence teachers’ teaching methodologies.
 Rural schools indicated a higher level of negative psychological pressure and impinged on
students’ freedoms.
 The study presented that administrators evaluate their teachers more accurately today.

Table No. 1. Proposals and Directions of Work to be done
Current Issues Responsible entity Direction of the work to be done Duration

Standards of primary education MECS, Institute of - Develop and adopt standards of Short term
To undertake measures in connection with Education and other learning environment
the content difficulty of primary education organizations, and - Carry out evaluation of standards and
standards, unclear and not adequate terms tertiary institutions renewing of standards and its refining
and terminologies used and lack of - Develop National Program of
environmental standards. Education
- Revise evaluation standards and
procedures of primary education, and
their enhancement
Textbooks MECS, Education - Ensure every student possesses Short term
Issues to be tackled include poor quality of and Culture textbooks
textbooks for primary education, and the Departments of - Develop one high quality textbook
determination of whether optional Aimags and the written according to the standards
textbooks meet the criteria. capital city, teachers,
authors of textbooks
Teacher activities MECS, Institute of - Establish teacher development Short term
Enhancing teaching skills of primary Education and other centers in each school and effectively
education teachers, implement trainings for organizations, and organize training seminars and
capacity building and development of teacher training workshops
teachers, establish students’ workload education - Effectively restructure the national
accurately, equip teachers with knowledge institutions teacher in-service training system
and skills and subsequently encourage them Education and - Rationally establish teachers’
to provide students with homework that is Culture Departments workload and improve their team
creative and that will match the age and of Aimags and the working skills
psychological development of their students. capital city, teachers - Manage teachers’ social issues
and school - Establish students’ workload in
administrators accordance with students age and
psychological specifics
- Expand and enhance the computer
use of teachers
Class size MECS, Institute of - Maintain a class size not larger than Short term
To minimize the amount of large classes Education and other 35 students per class (to establish a
that affect workload, health and quality of organizations, vacant position for an assistant
teaching, and learning for both teachers and Education and teacher per grade)
students. Culture Departments - Improve the interior environment,
of Aimags and the health and sanitation conditions and
capital city, teachers yet the comfort of classrooms and
and school facilities.
administrators
Training and education activities for teacher Government, MECS, - Select and enroll children who are Short term
training teacher training and genuinely motivated and interested in
To enhance the quality of graduates from education teaching
teacher training institutions to meet the institutions - Provide Government support to
growing demand and requirements of educational institutions involved in
quality criteria. teacher training
- Capacity building of teaching
personnel of teacher training
institutions and improvement of
training programs and curriculums,
particularly, enhancing content of
didactic programs on teaching,
thinking and research
Supply and quality of a dormitory MECS, Education - Build and develop new dormitories Long term
Improve the supply, quality and and Culture - Improve environmental and
environment of dormitories Departments of conditions
Aimags and the
capital city, and
school
administrators

Level of livelihood Parliament of - Policy regulation adopted at State and Long term
To pay attention to the existing link between Mongolia, Government levels
the level of poverty and livelihood that Government of - Increase government support to be
directly affects learning achievement. Mongolia, MECS provided to students who come from
and parents economically less capable families
Urban and rural location Government, MECS, - Enhance environmental and Short term
To eliminate the difference in learning School conditions of rural schools
achievement among urban and rural administrators, - Regulate migration
students. parents - Undertake measures to improve the
quality of teaching personnel of rural
schools
Co-operation MECS and school - Enhance related regulations and Medium
To improve and expand the link and administrators, procedures term
networking between schools, teachers and teachers and parents - Enable school activities to be more
parents. transparent for parents and enhance
their involvement and responsibilities
To link primary education with pre-school MECS, Education - Increase enrollment of children to Medium
education and Culture kindergartens term
To increase enrollment of pre-school Departments of - Enhance the quality and accessibility
education and enhance the quality of pre- Aimags and the of preschool education services
school education activities. capital city, - Enhance the link between and
administrators of integration of pre-school and
school and secondary educations.
kindergartens
National survey MECS and other - Undertake sample surveys by Long term
To improve poor implementation, policies donor countries and improving its design and
and decisions made respect to education due banks methodologies
to irregular organizing of such national - Develop policies based on study
scale surveys. findings and implement activities
accordingly
- Establish practices for training
teachers to gain knowledge and skills
about test items designed in
accordance with the international
methodologies and apply them in
their teaching
- Implement national similar surveys
in all other subjects
- Enhance information database and
software development
- Enhance the capacity building of
personnel and its supply, and
improve their specialization
Mathematics and reading Education and - Ensure that each school and teacher Long term
To carry out analysis and assessment of Culture Departments have developed and enriched test
insufficient quality of mathematics and of Aimags and the database that is piloted and reliable
reading and enhance learning achievement Capital city, - Train students in taking tests
and its quality. teachers, - Introduce consistently in teaching
administrators of advanced techniques, methodologies
schools and approaches to develop creative
thinking
- Pay special attention for students to
acquire skills to solve and
comprehend problems and creative
writing skills
- Teach students understand and work
with data, figures, diagrams and
tables
Remarks: Duration in this table has been identified as short, medium and long terms. Short term implies to priority and urgent
issues to be addressed, medium-term refers to actions to be undertaken in compulsory manner, and long-term refers to
measures that have to be implemented on a regular basis that is to be undertaken in a compulsory manner.

CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION OF NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF MATHEMATICS

AND READING
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Over 40 percent of the total population of Mongolia consists of people under the age of 18. Today, more
than 240,000 students are engaged in primary level education in secondary schools of the country.2
This study has been conducted to identify the level of mathematics and reading of students acquiring
primary education, identify factors that influence them and reveal their causes.
The study aimed to study the following issues and process the results obtained. These include:
 Implementation, quality and accessibility of primary education mathematics and reading standards,
(at what primary education level are the knowledge and skills of students?) What particular issues
require attention in future?
 Do learning achievements vary among school location, urban and rural schools, male and female
students and between Mongolian and Kazakh students?
 What are the primary factors that impact learning achievements? (what are the learning environment
dependent factors, and what are the positive and negative impacts and how it can be improved?
 How does the performance compare with that of international test items with results of other
countries?
 At what level are the issues of school environment, buildings and facilities; social issues of teachers;
issues related with the teaching personnel, teaching methodology, in-service teacher training;
livelihood conditions; and supply, availability and quality of books and textbooks? How can they be
improved and through what means?
 What are recommendations for teachers, students, school administrators and parents?
Mathematics and Literature have been selected as the core subjects of general education, and the subjects
have become to be required to study in-depth out of all the other general subjects. A professional team was formed
to implement the study for two years developing test items to assess students learning achievements. The team
made assessments in the subjects’ course curriculum and evaluation methods and hence made close analysis on
whether the set standards met the international evaluation standards. The testing items have been developed in
compliance with requirements set by highly qualified team of teachers and researchers. They were piloted for
quality improvement only at the end of the study, when the final results came out they made their vital contribution
to the analysis with their expertise and commentaries. Thus, the study aimed to achieve an objective yet realistic
conclusion and understanding.
The achievements in learning were determined on Mathematical and Reading Comprehension skills.
To reveal influencing factors of learning achievements in, and to clarify reasons and identify approaches to
enhance learning conditions for students, questionnaires were taken from student representatives, selected school
administrators, teachers3, aimag methodologists of primary education, and parents and guardians.
The survey book of students had 3 main parts for mathematics, reading comprehension and other survey
parts and it contained a total of 63 tasks and questionnaire with set of 38 questions. Questionnaire taken from
students contained questions about family and school environments, communication and interaction, supply of
learning materials such as textbooks, sense of motivation and enthusiasm towards learning, etc. Questionnaires for
2
Number of students enrolled in primary education for the academic year of 2007-2008, MECS
3
Teachers in this report are referred teachers who have been teaching at primary level.
school administrators, teacher representatives, and parents and guardians were comprised of 16-50 questions
related to students’ health, family environment, learning motivation and interest, school environment, student
development, supply and availability of textbooks, supply of teaching facilities, effectively communication among
parents and teachers.
Newly developed software was used developing and processing information database of the study; gave the
study an advantage of diminishing the probability of error to and extent of a certain percentage.
National study was carried out in two phases and the pilot study was organized from the end of September
to early October 2007. The pilot study involved school administrators (school principal and heads of departments)
and teachers with Masters Degrees from 39 schools were selected through sampling, and 1,170 6th grade students,
and 758 5th grade students. The main study had been organized during April-May of 2008 and it has involved 4,750
students from 166 schools, management (school principal and managers of studies) of 165 schools, teachers with
master’s degrees, and 1,944 parent and guardian representatives.
The study was conducted by taking consideration of Mongolian ethnic groups as well. Major
Representative of national minorities in Mongolia is Kazakh. Most Kazakh people live and inhabit in Bayan-Ulgii
aimag, and learning is held in Kazakh language in accordance with Mongolian educational standards. They survey
was conducted for Kazakh students as well. Materials were translated to Kazakh language. All secondary schools in
Bayan-Ulgii aimag, and 5th-11th grade students in Khovd aimag participated. Other national minorities
communicate in Mongolian language hence there was no need to study them specifically.
Results of Mathematics and Reading Comprehension achievement was expressed through scaled scores
used widely in international assessment surveys which applies an estimation that would mean arithmetic score of
500 with standard deviation to be equal to 100; based on that results of students involved in the study, their scores
were converted into scaled scores with subsequent establishment of benchmark levels. If a student who has
achieved a score equal4 with a mean score of the national study, it meant that the student was assessed with a mean
of 500 scores. Also it means that 2/3 of students were assessed in a range from 400 to 600 scores. Drawing
conclusions from scaled scores expressed through converting enables to determine outcomes more objectively. Or
in other words it meant that outcomes will not differentiate depending upon levels of item difficulty.
1.2 NEEDS OF THE ASSESSMENT
Assessment and enhancement of the quality of education has been among the most important issues
emphasized by policy makers within the education sectors of the global community. As a result of increased
importance attached to studies that assess learning achievements in many countries, its methodology itself is getting
more elaborate and comprehensively integrated. Similarly, a necessary requirement has evolved in Mongolia to
conduct such studies on a regular basis with the aim to develop the educational system and enhance its overall
benefits and outputs.
Results of our study could be compared and integrated with results of global/international studies to assess
learning achievement of mathematics and life skills conducted by UNESCO methodology in 1999. One similar
example is that the results of two studies have similarly indicated that learning achievement of students who have
entered into school at the ages of 6-7 are higher than those who have entered at the age of 8. Therefore, enrollment
of students into primary education at the age of 6 beginning the school year from 2008 in Mongolia could be
understood as the right direction to undertake within the framework of educational reforms.
A study to assess learning achievement of students have been carried out 4 times in Mongolia and this
study is the second survey carried out with the purpose of assessing learning achievement of students in
Mathematics and Reading Comprehension. By conducting this kind of study on a regular basis it is believed that it
will assist in determining the development and progress of primary education in Mongolia.
Reading comprehension and mathematics education enables to develop students cognitive skills to improve
their value and understanding of the wealth of knowledge and intellectual values accumulated by human kind, and
4
National study to assess learning achievement, UB, 2006

as well as their, processing and judgment skills. On the other hand, it has been decided to identify the levels of
mathematics and reading and the factors that impact them in order to overcome difficulties and find ways to ensure
greater satisfaction of social needs since these subjects are studied due to the importance of laying out the basics
and build the foundation for many other applied natural and social sciences, and also an individual’s need to
participate actively in multifaceted social activities have been taken into account along with the need to receive,
transmit and process information; express one’s own views and thoughts; ability to tackle issues rationally and
confront them; comprehend and recognize patterns through observation and testing; and develop a citizen who is
able to treat any issues critically behave actively and consciously in making decisions by applying knowledge and
language of literature and mathematics when involved in social relations.
Many of us tend to think that if a student has acquired good learning skills in primary classes, they then
have the potential to obtain quality education at basic and complete secondary education levels. Have students been
obtaining the proper and required level of primary education? Have our teachers been obtaining the necessary
skills? What are the possibilities for decent work? Do teachers work honestly with genuine commitment? Does my
child learn and improve when coming to class? Whether the tools my child needs is available at school? Whether
schools are clean? Whether my child’s teacher scolds my child? Does my child feel cold at school? My child’s
teacher seems to be a very good person, but the teacher claims that our child is not performing well. Am I able to
buy books for my child? Are books expensive? Are these books really needed? Do other children bully my child?
How would the methodology and skills of teachers compare with teachers of neighboring school? Is it correct to
encourage this teacher? How are teachers of my aimag if compared to teachers from Khentii aimag? My child says
that the school desk is too low, would the teacher get angry if I address that issue? What would happen if I
do/don’t? At what level is my child though teaching of mathematics in our aimag has been good? My child got A in
Mongolian language but received unsatisfactory results in exams. What does that mean? How are standards being
implemented? What will happen if I address these issues? If I do background research myself it would take a lot of
time, energy and skills, however, these are the questions we have to deal with. What would be the correct solution
to these issues? All of these issues then have been studies in relation to mathematics and reading of students and
attempts have been made to identify if not all but those priority issues to resolve urgently.
1.3 ADMINISTRATION OF THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT
Professional teams have been appointed within the READ project and these teams have worked during
every phase of the study. Study teams comprised of specialists from professional institutions, research organization
and lecturers from institutions of higher education engaged in research and study, specialists from aimag and
capital city Departments of Education and Culture, administrators and teachers from schools involved in the study
have been divided into teams.
A team to perform and provide management tasks; a panel of specialists to develop themes, items and
questionnaire; a team to administer study solely on its own; a team to check items with open ended responses, a
team to create a study information database; a software provision team; a team to develop a report and assist teams;
and international and domestic consultants have worked during the entire course of the study project
implementation. The panel to develop test items along with the management and information technology teams
have worked full time during the project implementation, whereas other teams have worked in accordance with
associated work directives, demand and requirements. Team members to develop items for mathematics and
reading have established a joint agreement where the responsibilities and tasks of each team have been clearly
identified and kept teams fully engaged throughout the entire study provisioning. For instance, teams to study
“Standards of Primary Education”, “Curriculum Framework”, design and calibration of items to assess learning
achievement internationally, SOLO and Bloom taxonomies, creation of themes and items database, their pilot
testing, development of an approach for scoring and coding with the aim to obtain objective and realistic study
findings and results. Members of the questionnaire team was assigned the task to develop, pilot and further refine a
questionnaire that would properly reveal factors that are impacting learning achievement, and contemporary trends

in modern society and economy and conduct training on actual administering and organization of study surveys for
selected teachers of institutions of higher education and secondary schools both in urban and rural areas, actual
administering of studies to reveal factors that impact learning achievements, study evaluation approaches of open
ended questions developed by project team members, ensure objective and accurate checking of mathematics and
reading items by trained team of secondary school teachers; entering of checked, coded and scored data by
secondary school teachers obtained from questionnaires for students, parents and teachers; mutual control of the
other, creation of a database to reveal objectively the study results and outcomes, and ensure the provision of
software to process recorded and entered information, etc. The report preparation and development team
participated in the study project to write a report for policy makers, researchers, teachers, parents and the general
public respectively based on facts and evidences and in accordance with the study findings.
Table No.2. Phases in Administration of the Study, Duration
Date/Duration Activities
Year 2006
August - November Appointment of teams;
Year 2007
January - July Creation of task item database, conducting of a study;
August - September Preparation of the pilot study (sample design, preparation of materials for study and
printing, develop guidelines, appoint teams to administer study);
from September 15 till, Pilot study conducted;

November 5
November - December Creation of an information database for pilot study, editing data, conduct analysis,
preparation of report;
December Provision of preparatory work for main study (sample design, creation of
information database of participants);
Year 2008
January - March Prepare and finalize survey booklet;
April Conduct small trial tests and produce final version of study booklet;
February - March Conduct training seminars, training for team members to administer testing and
further study;
Throughout the project Cooperation with international and national consultants;
April Printing of study materials, allocation and distribution;
April - May Conduct main study;

From, June 1 till July 15 Coding of open ended items (developing an approach, appointing of teams, revision
and corrections)
May - July Develop software;
July - September Creation of information database for main study, editing data;
October – December Preparation of report for main study, conduct analysis for submission,
dissemination to the general public.
1.4 TARGET POPULATION OF THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT
A National study has been carried out in two phases; a pilot study and a main study. 1,170 students from 39
schools were involved in the pilot study. Schools, classes and students who were involved in the pilot study were
not included in main study. 4,750 students from 166 schools were involved in the main study which was selected in
accordance with the sample design of the study.
5,107 students from 169 classes in 169 schools have been sampled for the study out of a total of 46,067
students studying in 5th grade of all Mongolian schools within the school year of 2007-2008. At that particular day,
when testing was held all students who attended class had been involved except for 172 who were sick, 72 had
excused absences and 74 had skipped class that day. Also 89 students have been transferred in and 121 students
have been transferred out of schools which were involved in the study. 5,200 survey booklets have been printed
with special dedication for every student with their names, national ID registration number, class and group.
The main study involved all aimags except for Gobisumber and Dundgoby. A total of 169 schools from 19
aimags have been sampled to be involved in the main study, but 2 special schools with not mainstream curriculums
were not included in the assessment. Also Ulaanhad bag, Altai soum of BayanUlgii aimag elementary school
couldn’t be included in the study due to bad weather conditions.
In addition 166 primary school teachers, 165 school administrators, methodologists from 21 aimag
Education and Culture Departments and 1,944 parents and guardians representatives participated in the survey
questionnaires of the assessment study.
 Students targeted
39.4 percent or 1,871 urban, and 60.6 percent or 2,879 rural school students were involved in the study.
Out of 15 students that were included in the study to represent the total student population within their age range
If an analysis of urban and rural students is carried out in terms of study coverage and representation then
63,1 percent of total students sampled (if considered without weighting) were rural and remaining 36,9 percent
were urban students. School representation changes when the weight of urban and rural students is considered.
Table No. 3. Number of Urban and Rural Students
Students involved in the study

Number of students by
Urban or rural Percentage Number of students Percentage
representation
Urban 16,836 36.9% 1,871 39.4%
Rural 28,779 63.1% 2,879 60.6%
Total 45,615 4,750

Based on Table 3it can be stated that the sample design of the assessment study reflects national statistics. In
terms of locations covered, 36.9 percent were urban, 26.5 percent were from aimag centers, and 34.3 percent from
soum centers and 2.3 percent were from bag level schools (without considering their weight).
Table No. 4. Number of Students by Location
Students involved in the study

Location Number of students by
Percentage Number of students Percentage
representation
Capital city 16,836 36.9% 1,871 39.4%
Aimag center 12,106 26.5% 1,285 27.1%
Soum center 15,627 34.3% 1,330 28.0%
Bagh 1,046 2.3% 264 5.6%
Total 45,615 4,750
50.1 percent of students involved in the assessment study were male and 49.9 percent were female. The
average age was between 11 and 12. And 80.8 percent of students spoke Mongolian, 14.6 percent spoke Kazakh,
0.4 percent spoke Buriad, 0.5 percent in Durvod, 0.6 percent in Tuvian, 1.3 percent in English, 0.3 percent in
Russian, 0.7 percent in Chinese and the remaining 0.4 percent in other languages. 67 percent of students had been
attending kindergarten from age 1-7 and the average attendance kindergartens were 2.6 years.
 Teachers
A total of 166 teachers who taught mathematics and Mongolian language to 5th grade students participated
in the study. 7.2 percent were male and 92.8 percent were female.
When determining the number of years the primary school teachers who participated in the study dedicated
themselves to the service the longest serving teacher has been working for 42nd school year whereas the youngest
teacher was in her first year of teaching career.
92.2 percent of teachers were primary school teachers and the remaining were teachers of Mongolian
language and mathematics and in considering the level of educational qualification, 38,3 percent of teachers had
special professional education, 41,5 percent had a bachelor’s degree in teaching; 3.7 percent had a Masters degree;
and 1.2 percent had completed secondary education and 15.0 percent were certified professionals.
10.3 percent of teachers had no certificate or licenses to teach and the remaining percentage of teachers had
teaching licenses/certificates.
On average teachers traveled 2.2 km to get to work and travel back home in 19 minutes. Most of them or
72.9 percent of them walked to work.
Most teachers or 73.5 percent owned their own apartments, 12 percent lived with their parents, siblings and
relative’s home; 12.5 percent rented apartments; 39.7 percent lived in traditional gers. 22.3 percent lived in housing
connected to the centralized heating and 29.8 percent of them lived in housing with no potable and hot waters.
78.2 percent of teachers live in apartments with 24 hour electricity supply, 72.1 percent live in housing
which do not supply heat, 75.5 percent live in apartments without hot running water supply, and 63.7 percent have
potable water supply on-delivery or from water supply kiosks; 56.9 percent had not computers; 90.5 percent had no
internet access; and 34.6 percent of teachers owned their own vehicles. The total number of hours teachers worked
on average were 19.6 hours per week, ranging from the lowest load of 4 hours per week to 31 hours per week.
When considering teachers’ experiences and period of teaching, the teachers involved in the study, 40.4
percent of mathematics teachers were teaching mathematics for 5th consecutive years, and 38 percent of Mongolian
language teachers were teaching for 5 consecutive years in their classes. Class size of primary school class settings
varied. In urban schools there were classes with a number of students up to 55. An average class size has been
larger in urban schools compared to rural ones. Official regulations have set the maximum number of students per

class not to exceed 35. The average class size was 40 students per class when selective analyses of schools with
class size of more than 35 students per class were undertaken.
 Schools
95.8 percent of schools involved in the study were public schools and 4.2 percent of them were privately
owned schools. It can be considered that representation of both public and private schools is sufficient. And the pie-
chart shown below represents schools involved in the study by their location.
Figure No. 2. Location of schools involved in the study
74.5 percent of schools involved in the study were regular mainstream schools whereas 3 percent of
schools were schools with vocational training and 22.5 percent of them with advanced curriculum studies.
The largest school involved in the study had 5,746 students with 174 classes whereas the smallest school
from a bag had 4 classes with 18 students. The school with the largest number of 5th grade classes had 13 groups
and 396 students, whereas a school with the smallest number of 5the grade class had 1 group with 3 students. When
the number of school staff was calculated the largest school had 381 staff and the smallest school had 3 employees.
 School management
The survey of school administration involved principals and training managers from 165 schools of which
65.5 percent of surveyed persons were school principals or head masters and the remaining were school managers.
The average age of school administrators was 46, the youngest was 24 years old, and the oldest was 64 years old.
Out of all the longest serving manager has been working for 32 years and the shortest serving manager has been
working in her first year. 44.8 percent of school administrators were male and the remaining were female teachers.
Most of the school managers graduated from the Mongolian National University, Mongolian National
University of Education, Teacher Training College and Teacher Training School in Arkhangai aimag. 47.2 percent
of school managers have graduated from one educational institution, whereas 15.2 percent have graduated from the
Academy of Management. In terms of professional background 26.7 percent of school administrators were primary
school teachers, 15.8 percent were mathematics teachers, 12.1 percent were Mongolian language teachers and the
remaining teachers taught other subjects. 3.0 percent of school administrators was persons with special education,
7.9 percent were people with diploma level of education, 47.3 percent had completed their bachelors in Education,
40 percent had acquired their Masters in Education and 0,6 percent had PhD in education.

 Representation of parents and guardians
56.2% of parent and guardian representatives of students involved in the study were mothers, 16.3% were
fathers, 4.9% were older brothers, 14.6% were older sisters, 4.4% were grandparents and 3.6% were neighbors,
relatives and dormitory teachers.
The education level of parents and guardians were determined by the following. 14.7% of fathers had
bachelor’s degree, 30% had special professional education, 30.7% had completed their secondary education, 25%
had professional education, and 6% had primary education. 17.4% of the mothers had their bachelor’s degree,
31.4% had special professional education, 31.3% had completed secondary education, 22% had secondary
education, 5.5% had primary education and 14.4 % of guardians had their bachelor’s degree, 25.4% had
professional education, 30.9% had completed secondary education, 17.9% secondary education, 7% had primary
education. 1% of fathers, 2% of mothers and 3.5% of guardians had no form of formal education.
 Methodologists from aimag ECD in charge of primary education

21 methodologists in charge of primary education from aimags have been involved in the study and 85.7%
were female and 14.3% were male. The age range of the methodologists spanned from 32 to 55 and the average age
was 41. 77.8% of methodologists were primary school teachers, 5.5% were Mongolian language teachers and
16.7% were of other disciplines. Considering their level of education, 10% had teaching certificates, 35%
completed their bachelors in Education and 55% had acquired master’s in Education. In terms of the level of
qualification, 4.8% were teachers with the rankings of methodologists, 66.7% were teachers with lead teacher
rankings and 28.6% had advisory level of qualification rankings.
Aimag ELD methodologists have been working within the education sector for 3-34 years and have
worked as methodologists in charge of primary education for 1-21 years.
1.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The factors that impact learning achievement and their interrelationships have been identified in addition to
determining learning achievements of mathematics and reading of students through the national assessment study
of learning achievements in primary education.
Many methodologies have been applied during the course of the study and furthermore, these methods and
approaches have now been made possible to be used in further studies and surveys. It has been considered that this
study has far more advantages compared to other studies conducted in Mongolia in previous years, since relevant
instruments and approaches along with international methodologies have been applied accordingly during each
phase of the study. Specific methodologies and approaches used in this study are as follows:
1. In designing survey tasks, blueprints have been developed in accordance with the SOLO taxonomy.
2. Survey booklets have been developed in compliance with international approaches.
3. System of numbering and coding has been introduced for each survey items.
4. Booklet design has been used in the distribution of study booklets;
5. Item analysis has been carried out using classical statistics approaches of RASH (IRT) model tasks of
ConQuest programming;
6. Newly developed MySchool software has been used when specifically in creating information
database;
7. SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences)-13 has been used in conducting analysis of study results
and processing data for information database;
8. Analysis has been made through converting students test results into scaled scores in addition to using
average performance percentages of students in mathematics and reading ;

9. Weighing approach that takes into account representation characteristics has been used in developing
sample design.
10. A team to carry out and administer the examination were selected and specially trained through a
sequence of training workshops and seminars.
11. International test items have been included at 14.2-36.3% of the total items to carry out a comparative
study.
12. Meeting with parents was organized in classes that participated in the study and discussions and
dialogue were held among the parents and organizers.
13. Discussion and dialogue was held with representatives of teachers and methodologists in charge of
primary education on priority issues facing primary education and their proposals and viewpoints have
been reflected duly in the study report.
1.6 ITEMS AND QUESTIONNAIRES DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY
Education standard have been in effect in Mongolia since 1 January, 2005 and thus this year is the 4th year
since the standards have been enacted for its implementation.
The aim of education standard lies in planning of a curriculum for delivery of a particular level of
education to students, measurement, and assessment of the quality of activities undertaken for its implementation
and monitoring, and serves as the main factor for the standard of development.
Mathematics and reading referred to in this study implies skills which have been prescribed by standards of
primary education in mathematics, Mongolian language and literature.
Primary education standards in mathematics
Certain skills have been selected for assessment of competencies such as interactions using mathematical
language, mathematical based reasoning, model-based estimations and problem solving within four domains of
mathematical competencies that include number and numeracy, algebra, geometry, probability and statistics of
primary education mathematics. About 70 % of skills prescribed by primary education standards of mathematics
have been included for assessment through this study.
Primary education standards in Mongolian language
Standards of Mongolian language is a document that has established benchmarks in the domains of
meaning of each language unit, structure, modification and culture in acquiring of basic skill levels of reading,
listening, speaking and writing by students. Primary education standard have four competencies: knowledge,
execution, existence and socialization and therefore, expresses knowledge, skills, attitude and development
acquired by a human being through an integrated approach.
Learning activities of Reading (selection of a topic for reading, seeking out for that material, reading for
oneself and others, reflecting what has been read, comparison with one’s own previous knowledge and viewpoints,
provision of personal judgment, application of knowledge and skills from personal life), Writing (memorizing a
selected text, writing by heart/from memory or expository writing, creative and initiative writings, essay writing,
selection of a theme for writing passage, gathering relevant materials, drafting, proof-reading and refining of a
draft, final writing, analysis and assessment of own text and passages written by others), Listening (listening to a
text and working with it) have been included in the assessment study. By this study we have targeted to study
specifically reading but not all skills prescribed within Mongolian language standard.

Content of items designed and used for mathematics test has covered number and numeracy, algebra,
geometry and probability section and question of reading has involved 3 skills as listening, reading and essay or
creative writing skills and designed within the scope of language meaning, structure, transformation and culture
sections.
Members of question development teams have performed and completed the following tasks and assignments:
 Members of the national assessment teams have developed a detailed work plan, researched and analyzed
concepts, content, evaluation, methodology and sample curriculum framework of primary education
standards;
 Team members have created a questions database which comprised of texts and questions to suit the age
range and psychological specifics of students acquiring primary education and have carried out analysis of
each questions and tasks;
 Team members have studied and analyzed international methodologies of assessment of mathematics and
reading, content of questions and tasks, and their calibrations and designs;
 Team members have agreed and established a ratio of questions and tasks by studying the evaluation
methodology of SOLO taxonomy;
 Team members have identified which sections need more attention in primary education standards;
 Test questions and tasks were reviewed and improved by international and domestic consultants based on
active exchange of viewpoints and ideas;
 Pilot testing was conducted after test items were developed and reviewed;
 Results of the pilot test were analyzed and items which were too difficult or easy, or had poor discriminate
abilities were either eliminated or re-designed and improved;
 Evaluation and assessment approaches and procedures were developed after questions and tasks were
developed;
 Training was organized for methodologists, specialists and teachers of primary education after the
development of the evaluation and assessment procedures and instructions were completed and their views
and proposals have been integrated;
 After review and improvement of test items, they were given for review and assessment by members of
consulting teams;
 Final versions of the study booklets have been developed and completed;
 The National assessment was implemented;
 Questions and tasks with open ended responses were coded;
 Database of multiple-choice and open ended response questions and tasks were created.
Following strict requirements after designing and developing of test items the following were undertaken:
 To establish an optimal number of test items and time required for completion in accordance with students
age and psychological specifics;
 To establish the maximum number of pages for each test booklet;
 To develop questions and tasks according to each phase and level of cognitive understanding;
 To apply variable forms and types of questions and task design and content;
 To ensure quality and appropriateness of questions and tasks, and their level of difficulty as well as their
discriminate abilities;
 To match questions and tasks with content standards of primary education standards;
 To apply items which are based on SOLO taxonomy approach; and
 To have answer keys for questions and tasks to be developed.

Members of the project team have studied Primary Education Standards and SOLO and Bloom taxanomies prior to
carrying out of this national assessment and have shared a consideration that SOLO taxanomy is an approach to
reveal students’ skills more comprehensively and fully, and develop questions and tasks in blueprints based on the
creation of their databases and pilot testing of those questions and tasks.
Questions and tasks that reveal each level of cognitive understanding have been developed according to the
required compulsory knowledge to be acquired by students in each of those levels from the content standard of the
national primary education standards when blueprints of test questions and tasks were developed. Please refer to
the blueprint of mathematics and reading from a Table No. 5.
SOLO taxanomy including the following 5 levels:
 Pre-structural level: Basic notions should be acquired at this level;

 Uni-structural level: Students have recognized and understood only one notion and are not able to establish
links and associations with other notions;
 Multi-structural level: Students can use number of notions that are interrelated and linked in between;
 Relational level: Students possess complete understanding of systems or structures within a notion and are
able to judge and evaluate interrelation and dependence;
 Extended abstract level: Students are able to add new notions or concepts on ones which have been
acquired and are able to use and apply under new conditions and circumstances.
Table No. 5. Blueprint of Mathematics
Levels of Knowledge
Total Items
Acquisition
Section Standard content
Percen
2L 3L 4L Number
tage
Writing decimals in words 4* 12 42.9%
Using property of numbers divisible by 4 1*
NUMBER AND NUMERACY
Solving word problems using time units 2*

Recognizing relationship between time measurements 3*
Ordering whole numbers 8*
Finding a number related to a given proportion 5*
Comprehending, reading a map and calculating the distance between 2 6*
cities
Finding the value of a numerical expression 7*
Understanding and reading a bar graph 10* 14*
Finding necessary information from the given bar graph and comparing 11*
them
Finding the mean of numbers from the given bar graph 12*
Number of questions and tasks from Number and Numeracy section 3 7 2
Finding relationship between the area of floor and weight of painting 16*,17* 8 28.6%
Finding a variable understanding the algorithm 19*,20*
ALGEBRA
and checking
Finding a fraction using a diagram and expressing it with whole and 21*
fractional parts
Finding the variable from the expression and the value of it 22*
Finding the coordinate of a point on the numerical ray 18*
Composing an expression with a variable 9*
Number of questions and tasks from algebra section 6 2
Finding relationship between a point and a segment and counting all 28* 5 17.8
GEOMETRY
possible segments
Finding the Area of a rectangle 15*
Labeling angles 26*
Dividing a square into 4 equal triangles 13*
Finding the height of solid rectangular using the volume and other 27*
measurements
Number of questions and tasks from Geometry section 3 2
Counting possibilities 25* 3 10.7%
O
R
A
B
P
Defining a pattern 23*

Counting possibility to match a given condition 24*

Number of questions and tasks from Probability section 1 2
Number of all questions and tasks 3 17 8 28
Weight % 10.7% 60.8% 28.5% 100%
 PS: *- Number of Questions and Tasks in booklets 1,4,7
Table No. 6. Blueprint of Reading
Levels of Knowledge Acquisition

Section Standard content Total Percentage
2L 3L 4L 5L
Finding the theme of a text; R5A2_02, R5A2_17 2
Finding the main idea of a R5A2_03, R5A2-07 R5A3_018, R5A4_05 7
text; R5A2_18 R5A3_06 R5A4_06
Finding the intended purpose R5A1_14 1
of a text;
Finding the main idea of a R5A1_01, R5A1_06 R5A2_12 R5A3_08 R5A4_02 7
part of a text; R5A1_19, R5A1_21
Finding of an additional idea R5A1_04, R5A1_07 R5A2_05 R5A3_05 21

of a text; R5A1_08, R5A1_09 R5A2_08, R5A2_09
R5A1_10, R5A1_11 R5A2_13, R5A2_14
R5A1_12, R5A1_13
R5A1_15
R5A1_16, R5A1_20
Meaning of a text
R5A1_22, R5A1_23
Finding support and key R5A1_02 R5A2_06, R5A2_11 R5A3_02 4
words and sentences;
Defining an object and its R5A1_03, R5A1_18 R5A2_16 3
features; 89.2%
Finding meaningful R5A1_17 R5A2_01 R5A3_03, R5A4_04 6
relationships between R5A3_07
language units; R5A3_10,
Finding the main idea of a R5A3_04 1
paragraph;
Expressing a main idea of a R5A4_01, 2
text through an idiom; R5A4_07
Distinguishing between R5A2_04, R5A2_15 2
similar and opposite
meanings of paragraphs;
Distinguishing between R5A2_10 R5A3_09 R5A4_03 3
similar and opposite
meanings of sentences;
Defining an intended R5A1_05 1
purpose of sentence;
Number of items from textual 23 18 10 7 58
meaning section;
Recognizing a paragraph; R5B1_01 1
structure
Textual
Finding parts of a text; R5B3_01, 3

distinguishing them; R5B3_02,
6.2%
R5B3_03
Number of items from textual 1 3 0 4
structure section;
Textual transformation
R5CD_01A, 9
Creative writing based on R5CD_02A
observation of a drawing; R5CD_03A,
and culture
R5CD_01B,
R5CD_02B,
R5CD_03AB, 4.6%
R5CD_01C,
R5CD_02C
R5CD_03C,
Number of items in textual 0 0 0 9 9
transformation and culture section
Total Number of questions and 24 18,0 13 16 71
100
tasks
Total Percentage 34% 26% 19% 23%

Test items to assess learning achievement of students in mathematics and identify their levels were
developed within the scope of primary education standard section of mathematics including number and numeracy,
algebra, geometry and probability statistics. Questions and tasks of the algebra section and multi-structural level
tasks have been included predominantly taking into consideration the following factors as age and specifics of
psychological development of children of this age. On the other hand, content framework of the education
standards was taken into account.
Test items in mathematics have been selected in accordance with 3 levels out of 5 levels of cognitive
understanding approach known as SOLO Taxanomy which covered a uni-structural (2L), multi-structural (3L) and
relational level (4L) questions and tasks since the National assessment was meant to evaluate mathematics skills at
the primary education level. The percentage ratio of the three levels of questions and tasks were split as follows:
2L-2 level questions and tasks have taken up 7.1%, 3L-19 questions and tasks 67.8% and 3L-7 questions and tasks
have taken up 28% of all questions and tasks hence indicating that the questions and tasks have been appropriately
selected to match the age and psychological characteristics of primary school students.
Questions and tasks of uni-structural level in mathematics tests have included tasks to test skills in
comparing numbers, interpreting and reading column diagrams, and comparing the given information from column
diagrams. Multi-structural items included tasks to test related skills of students such as writing decimals in figures;
applying features of multiple-digit numbers to be divided into four; finding the relationships between time
measurement units; matching numbers with given percentages; understanding, interpreting and estimating line or
floorplan drawings done under a concrete established scale; calculating the sum of mixed multiple digit numbers
through compound operations; calculating arithmetic means of numbers from information given in column
diagram; establishing relationships between measurement units of an area and weight; finding an unknown number
from a given expression; expressing fractions and whole numbers and integers in numbers; finding the meaning of
an expression by determining unknown operational elements; finding coordinates of a point on a number frame of
reference; creative writing an expression with unknown elements; determining the area of a parallelepiped; naming
angles; dividing geometrical shapes and determining the frequency patterns. Relational level items have a purpose
to reveal skills related with the transfer of motional and time measurement units; interpreting and understanding
column a diagram; determining and examining an unknown number in a given algorithmic data sequence;
determining the relationship between line segment and a point, counting all potential line segments that could be
established; finding the relationship between a right angle parallelepiped volume and measurements; counting the
number of possibilities to estimate volume and counting possible terms or factors that will keep objectivity or
truthfulness of particular term and condition.
Questions and tasks to reveal language skills in reading included questions selected from three major parts
that comprised of listening, reading and creative writing from a visual provided.
Reading tasks of the test for primary education have been developed based on cognitive skill levels
established according to the SOLO Taxonomy approach. SOLO Taxonomy has 5 cognitive levels. Test items in
reading have been selected according to the 4 levels out of 5 levels of cognitive SOLO Taxanomy approach to
meet the objectives and covered uni-structural (2L), multi-structural (3L), relational level (4L) and abstract (5L)
items since the National assessment was meant to evaluate reading at the primary level of education. The
percentage ratio of those selected 4 levels of questions and tasks were divided as follows: 2L-24 level questions and
tasks took up 39.4%; 3L-18 questions and tasks 27.3%; 4L-10 questions and tasks 162% and 5L-12 questions and
tasks have taken up 18.2% of the total questions and tasks. This indicates that questions and tasks were
appropriately selected to match the age and psychological characteristics of primary school students.
Listening
Listening is considered as one of the important elements of reading and one of the variety of methods used
in acquiring and obtaining knowledge and information. In other words, in addition to reading, students are required
to acquire listening skills to comprehend the content of what has been listened to and process information received.

Therefore, in order to reveal the level of reading a text called “Why do birds migrate” and the questions
and tasks were designed containing the main ideas of each paragraph for students to provide their answers. These
questions and tasks were multiple-choice questions with discriminate ability.
Reading
Reading questions and tasks were developed according to the requirement set in the standards of primary
education for primary school student to read a minimum of 70 words per minute. Following this requirement 3
texts with around 210-260 words each were selected with the notion that students would spend 3 minutes reading a
text with questions and tasks developed to reveal the meaning, structure, transformation and culture of language
and answers provided in multiple-choice format. Types of textual style, genres and forms have been taken into
consideration when selecting reading texts for the test. The purpose of this item was for students to demonstrate
that they are able to comprehend by reading texts of any form of style and genre.
Essay/Creative writing
The theme and the number of words were given through questions and tasks to be performed by students in
order to reveal their essay or creative writing skills.
Students were given a drawing to match the theme provided to guide or hint since essay or creative writing
tasks were questions and tasks of relatively high difficulty and abstract level that required them to think and write
creatively.
Creative writing of students were assessed during the pilot study through questions and tasks were asking
them to reproduce what had been understood by them after listeninig to a recorded text. However, results of the
pilot study have shown that this items was not a creative task since students had been writing pretty similar texts,
therefore, the design of this task has been changed into a task which required students to write a creative essay
under the given topic and hints derived from a visual.
A visual was selected and provided containing themes and content which have been relevant and
appropriate for creative writing by any student, both urban and rural.
QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN
Since the major aim of the national assessment has been to provide explanations about factors having
impact on learning achievements in association with learning achievements and to identify ways of improvement.
Therefore, greater attention has to be paid to the design of the questionnaire. Various forms of questionnaires were
used, including fill-in-the-blank and multiple-choice questions, however, questions were adjusted in their design
accordingly depending on who these questions were directed to or asked from and made it as easy and plain to
understand.
Questionnaires were designed and developed to survey teachers, students, school administrators, aimag
methodologists in charge of primary education and parent and guardian representatives.
To develop questions that are realistic and objective as possible, questions that are asked from students, for
instance, questions were developed to irritate them and made easy for them to answer and reveal their assessments
realistically. Certain issues that are difficult and delicate such as whether a child is an orphan or not, employment
of parents, level of livelihood standards, health conditions, disabilities that could possibly be delicately perceived
by students have been decided to be directed towards their master teachers and 16 specific questions have been
added to the questionnaire designed for master teachers.
In a questionnaire developed for school administrators, issues have been included related to school learning
environments, teaching staff, supply of books and textbooks, quality, social issues and skills of teachers, state of
students’ knowledge and morale development, financial and physical environment and whether there are effective
working legal environment in place etc.

Questionnaire to be taken from parents and guardians included questions related to school learning
environments; knowledge, skills and methodology of teachers; information about students; and satisfaction and
education of parents.
Participants of the national assessment have been surveyed on the following major group of issues related
to family environment (education of parents, whether they have their own separate room and satisfactory
livelihood supply, whether they possess their own set of books and desk; regarding power supply conditions,
whether their children feel hungry and cold, whether their children went to kindergarten, employment of parents,
how far their homes are from their school and how many of them are in their families, etc.), school learning
environment (supply and availability of textbooks and books, classroom environment, whether school restrooms
are outside or inside the building, the level of prestige of the school, how far the school is from students’ homes,
whether training inventories are sufficient, whether school has a library, the number of students that share a desk,
the size of the class is adequate, whether the school has their own facilities, the quality of buildings and facilities,
when the school was built, the location of the school, whether the school has many classes and facilities, the source
of school electricity supply, school prestige, how long students have been studying together with their classmates,
whether students have sports facilities to perform their physical activities etc.), social environment (how much
attention is provided from the central and local governments to education, whether standard are relevant and
influential to reality), finances and physical infrastructure (level of living standards, possession of sportswear
and textbooks, possession of home TV set, vacuum cleaner, personal computer, home availability of restroom and
access to the internet, phone etc.), teaching personnel (whether teacher conducts good lessons, level of teacher
education, age of teachers, in-service teacher training, work experience, whether teachers prepare electronically
produced materials and use computers during their lessons, whether teachers make ethical mistakes, whether their
teachers have been writing books or textbooks, use of teaching and training materials, how teacher skills are
evaluated, whether teachers provide extra tutorial lessons to students lagging behind in their studies, whether
teachers provide explanations on questions asked on unclear issues and respect their students, etc.), friends and
friendship environment (communication and relationship between friends, whether children are engaged in
playing various games, etc.), leisure time (how students spend their leisure time, and how much time students
spend to attend social clubs and payment-based trainings, in helping their friends study and perform household
chores, in cleaning their classrooms and facilities, in doing their homework, in taking care of their siblings, in
studying at libraries, in playing games and watching TV, in working to earn money, etc.).
In carrying out analysis of how the above mentioned factors have been associated with learning
achievements, the following issues have to be considered:
 Ensure fulfillment with an aim or goal-oriented;
 Questions should avoid content duplication and ambiguity. It should be precise and clear to
understandable;
 Questionnaire should not have an imperative or superior language tone of order;
 Establish a rational timeline needed for completing the questionnaire and its overall completion and
size of the questionnaire;
 Questionnaire should begin with easy questions and lead to difficult questions;
 Logical order should be followed and applied;
 Carry out surveillance on whether questionnaire content is agreed by.

1.7 BOOKLETS DESIGN
National assessment booklets of primary education have been published in 9 different versions and each
version has consisted of three parts, including:
 Mathematics section;
 Reading section;
 Student’s questionnaire section;
Study booklet has been printed in A4 format, 38 pages in Times New Roman font. Name and school as
well as which booklet to work on have been all indicated clearly on the cover of the assessment booklet, such as on
its first page (full name, name of aimag, soum, class group, school ID5, control ID, students ID, control code,
registration booklet and gender).
Prior to each section, students were given Attention Notes with instructions given on how to complete test
items and reminders on time needed to complete each tasks which were to help students prevent possible mistakes.
On the other hand, this could have a positive impact in respect to having more objective and realistic results from
the national assessment.
Items have been designed and developed to identify levels of primary education mathematics, which
comprised of 66 distinct questions and tasks with sound discriminate abilities, combined with one version bridging
problem, and 28 questions and tasks to be completed in 60 minutes, whereas to identify reading had consisted of
71 questions and tasks with proper discriminate abilities with 35 questions and tasks to be completed in one
version, and 39 questions were included in the questionnaire section to respond within 20-30 minutes to reveal
factors that impact learning achievement of students.
Furthermore questions, task design and planning included the following allocations conducted in terms of
tasks structure and educational standard domain representation as inclusion in each of test versions a combination
of 12 from the number and numeracy section of primary education mathematics, 8 from the algebra section, and 5
geometry section. 3 questions and tasks from probability statistics were split into 3 uni-structural level items, 17
multi-structural level items and 8 relational level tasks according to cognitive SOLO taxonomy approach. In terms
of reading test comprised of 58 questions and tasks on language meaning from primary education reading skills, 4
language structure section and 9 language modification/transformation and culture section which were split into 24
uni-structural level, 18 multi-structural items, 13 relational structure and 10 from extended abstract structure in
accordance with cognitive SOLO taxonomy approach.
Moreover, Coded Notes were inserted for each task at the upper left corner of a page indicating subject,
section and level of cognitive understanding of each task which were conducted with to use as a reference in
making analysis of items easier. For instance:
Coded notes referenced as R5A2_01, M5A3_03 for each item shall be decoded as R-reading skill, M-
mathematics, 5-class involved in the assessment, A-language meaning section, B-language structure section, CD-
language transformation and Culture section/A-number and numeracy section of mathematics, B-algebra structural
section, C-section of probability statistics, D-geometry section/, 2-uni-structural level of cognitive understanding,
01-item No.1 etc. Also coded notes on lower right corner of a page as B2_M15 /В2_R5/ is decoded and understood
as B-study booklet, 2-Number of a study booklet, M-mathematics/R-reading/, 15-number of an item in that
particular study booklet etc.
Study booklets of the national primary education assessment have been developed in 3 basic versions and
were published in 9 different publications by changing the order of items in booklets. The following tables present
how items of mathematics and reading were created for each study or assessment booklet.
5
Number of a school
Table No. 7. Design of Study Booklets for Mathematics Items
Section Cluster Number of questions and tasks

Number and
Numeracy А А1 А2 8
Algebra B B1 B2 5
Probability C C1 C2 2
Geometry D D1 D2 3
Bridging task items SC 10
Note: clusters - А, А1, А2, В, В1, В2;
If each study booklet is considered in detail:
Table No. 8. Design of Mathematics Items in Assessment Booklets
Study booklets
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX
A B B A1 B1 B1 A2 B2 B2
SC C SC SC C1 SC SC C2 SC
B D A B1 D1 A1 B2 D2 A2
C SC D C1 SC D1 C2 SC D2
D A C D1 A1 C1 D2 A2 C2
Table No. 9. Design of Reading Items in Study Booklet
Number of
Type of skills Type of texts Cluster question and
tasks
Items for listening SC1 SC1 SC1 5
Cognitive Science text A A1 A2 5
Text from modern fiction B B1 B2 5
Reading comprehension
Text from traditional folklore C C1 C2 5
International test items SC2 SC2 SC2 12
Creative essay writing Creative writing of a text on a
SC3 SC3 SC3 3*
based on a picture shown given theme
total 35
Table No. 10. Design of Reading Each of Study Booklet
Study booklets
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX
SC1 SC1 SC1 SC1 SC1 SC1 SC1 SC1 SC1

A B C A1 B1 C1 A2 B2 C2
B C A B1 C1 A1 B2 C2 A2
C A B C1 A1 B1 C2 A2 B2
In addition, 10 minutes of break time has been recommended to be taken after mathematics and reading test
sections. At the end of tests a questionnaire was included for students to respond.
1.8 ITEM SCORING METHOD
The measures of literacy and mathematics in the Nationwide Research of the Success of the Elementary
Education Systems were multiple-choice and open ended questions. Each multiple choice question had 4 options
and only one correct answer. One point was given for each correct multiple-choice answer, and 0 points for each
incorrect answer. 1-5 points for each open ended question, depending on the number of steps taken to get an
answer. Two scores were reported. First was the simple raw score, or the number of points. The second score was a
diagnostic score. This second score was reported using a 2 digit code known only by the researchers. The
researchers used an instruction book in scoring the tests. For the open ended questions, a 2 digit code was used.
The teacher wrote the code according to the instruction book, and a monitoring team also scored the tests. Any
differences were resolved by the leader of the monitoring team.
The open ended question coding was done using the following instructions (to create the 2 digit code):
 First digit. If the answer is correct the first digit is 1-5. For a wrong answer, first digit “7” is used.
If there is no answer, use “9.” For answers that are correct, the first digit represents the score. For
example, “21” means the score given is “2,” and “31” would mean it is “3.” Three represents a
better performance than two.
 Second digit. This digit shows diagnostic information. The second digit is 0-9. For example, “21”
and “29;” “29” shows the performance is far from correct, but the “20” shows that of all the
answers that received a “2” for the first digit, this one was the best.
We created coding instruction books for each test. One math test is shown as an example:
Table No. 11 Example math open ended question scoring
Test Number: M5D4_06

Code Answer
Version Number B4-B28
Test: Connect the given dots to create as many lines as possible
Correct Answer
20 Made correct lines, wrote the table number wrong
21 Made wrong lines, table number was right
29 none
Incomplete
10 1 line was correct, and the answer was right
11 2 lines were correct, but answers were not written
12 2 answers were right, but there were no lines
13 Other incomplete answers

Incorrect Answers
70 Connected the lines correctly but answered wrong
79 Wrong answer (erased, illegible, bubble incompletely filled, etc…)
No answer
99 Missing

CHAPTER 2. FINDINGS AND RESULTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF MATEMATICS

AND READING
2.1 SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS AND RESULTS OF OF THE MATEMATICS AND READING
Percentages of the mean score of students’ performance in mathematics were 45.4% and 41.2% in reading
comprehension by the National study of primary education assessment. Analysis of outcomes of reading
assessment has been carried out in two ways, first including performance results of international test items, and
second, without including the performance of international reading test items. The average percentage of
performance scores was 48% in considering assessment results without including international test items for
reading. Analysis of reading items and general outcomes have been presented in this report with the scoring which
has included international test items, however, international test items have not been included in the provision of
analysis and explanation of factors associated with learning achievement at the national level hence it was required
to do so.
Table No. 12. Mathematics and Reading learning achievement of Students
Percentage Standard error

Mathematics 45.4 0.2
Reading (with international items) 41.2 0.2
Reading (without international items) 48 0.2
State examinations in secondary education schools in Mongolia have been conducted since 1997 and until
2005 these examinations had been administered by independent organizations such as the State Professional
Inspection Authority and later by the Education Evaluation Center, which were responsible for developing exam
themes and items. Comparison of learning achievement of students in primary education mathematics and reading
has yielded similar results with results of those previously undertaken examination results. The Education
Evaluation Center started to administer state examinations for secondary education schools in the country since
2005 in accordance with the uniformly established content and selected theme, hence it provides a real possibility
for viewing the results of this learning achievement assessment in primary education math and reading in a very
objective and unbiased manner, and that it is not an independent assessment.
Results of our study have yielded very similar results with the findings of previous studies carried out in
Mongolia to assess learning achievement.
In comparing learning achievements between urban and rural schools, student performance from the capital
city has been 13.6% higher than that of rural students.
Table No. 13. Link between the learning achievement of urban and rural students
Reading Mathematics
Percentage Standard error Percentage Standard error

Urban 47.4 1.08 54.06 0.43

Rural 37.5 0.89 40.4 0.34
Learning achievement of students from the capital city (urban)6 was higher by 14% from the learning
achievement of rural children in mathematics, and by 10 % in reading.
The following Figure presents the performance of learning achievement of rural and urban children in
mathematics and reading separately.
Figure No. 3. Mathematics and Reading: Urban/Rural students
Mathematics Reading
Urban Rural Urban Rural
Number of students Number of students

Considering results of learning achievements, the learning achievement have varied and differed.
Table No. 14. Link between Learning achievements of students and location
Mathematics Reading

Capital city 54 0.4 47.9 0.3
Aimag center 47.2 0.5 42.1 0.4
Soum center 35.8 0.4 35.1 0.4
Bag 30.4 1.3 29.2 1.5
In comparing the learning achievement of students living at bag with learning achievements of urban
children, their performance results have been lower by 18.7% in reading and by 23.6% in mathematics which
indicate that the quality of teaching at rural and urban schools have a huge gap. The following figure shows how
learning achievements vary according to the location of students.
6
Students from the capital city are accounted as urban students.
Figure No. 4. Dependence of Mathematics and Reading from Location
City Aimag Soum Bag City Aimag Soum Bagh

center center center center
Learning achievement differences associated with location has been analyzed and in later chapter analysis
details will be provided on factors thought to have impact on learning achievement because of place of living and
studying.
The fact that 49.9% of participants involved in the study were girls and remaining 51.1% were boys have
provided wide opportunities for further comparative study.
Table No. 15. Link between Mathematics and reading and gender
Mathematics Reading
Gender
Boys 45,5 0,4 39,0 0,3
Girls 45,4 0,3 43,3 0,3
Performance of girls and boys in mathematics has been very similar whereas in reading girls have
performed better by 5 % in comparison to boys when learning achievement of students was compared by gender.

Figure No. 5. Comparative Learning Achievement by Gender
Mathematics Reading
Boys Girls Boys Girls
In considering learning achievement related with the age of school entrance, the learning achievement of
students who have entered at age 6 have been higher than students who have entered at the age of 7 and 8.
Figure No. 6. Link between Learning Achievement and age of school entrance
From this it can be concluded that the learning achievement would be higher if students enter schools at
earlier age.

2.2 FINDINGS AND RESULTS OF MATHEMATICS
Mathematics part of the survey booklet had included 28 items. Twenty two items or 78.6% were multiple
choice items, 6 questions and tasks or 21.4% were open ended questions. The survey booklet had 3 basic versions
and by changing the sequence of the test items a design for allocating survey booklets has been produced and
therefore, 9 versions of the survey booklet has been obtained. The true level of primary education mathematics in
reality has been estimated by carrying out analysis of test item performances, for instance, by performing analysis
and estimation of each general level, each domain and cognitive levels.
The performance percentage and frequency of dependency have been closely related with normal
distribution when the mean performance score of students involved in the study has been compared with the total
number of students. It has shown here that design and calibration of test items were congruent with the given
requirements. The percentage of the mean performance scores of mathematics items has been 45.4 % which is
lower than the average level of standard implementation.
Figure No. 7: Distribution of Performance Students (by number of students)
Score
Results of the survey have shown that 34% of students’ have performed of 60% and above, and 75% of
them had a mean percentage of performance scores below 60%.
An analysis has been carried out on how the performance would be rated when determining the type of
item and its responses. An average score of a selective number of items have been 11.2% or successful
performance percentage has been at 51.2%. 0.5% of students have been able to perform the highest score which
was 22.
The mean score of 12 open ended questions and tasks including filling, matching, calculating, creating and
drawing tasks were 4.1% or 34.8% of the performance success, and 88.9% of students have performed with a
successful performance lower than 60% . That has shown that the performance ability of open ended items of
students involved in the primary education in which student had to perform such mental skills and procedures as
performing mathematical calculation, drawing diagrams and providing visual prompt, has been poor if compared to
the performance ability of selecting type of items. In performing of an IRT analysis of each item, there were no
items which had not met the requirements imposed, or with poor discriminate ability or unfit level of item
difficulty. However, it is needed for 5the grade students to acquire skills and abilities to perform items which would
require such mental skills as problem solving and creative thinking.

Table No. 16. Performance of Students in Each Mathematics Section
Section Percentage share of students with Percentage share of students with Percentage of mean
performance of less than 60% performance of 60% and above performance
Number, numeracy (AD) 55 45 53.4
Algebra (BD) 77.6 22.4 33.5
Geometry (DD) 65.4 34.6 50.3
Probability, statistics (CD) 92.3 7.7 29.3
Students test performance has shown that the majority of students or 96.5% of them have performed
unsatisfactory to problems in probability statistics. The fact that the students’ ability to perform problems in
geometry, and numbers and numeracy domain has been better than the ability to perform items from other two
domains might be more likely to be related with the number of class hours, content of a textbook and methodology
of teachers. Hence teachers of primary education are in need of mastering each domain of standard content and
teaching students to acquire the required knowledge and skills and learning methods and skills to perform items
and tasks.
Table No. 17. Performance on Each Levels of Mathematics Items
Percentage share of
Percentage share of
students with Percentage of mean
Level students with performance
performance of less performance
of 60% and above
than 60%
Unstructured (2L) 45.2% 54.8% 67.6%
Multi-structural (3L) 61.2% 38.9% 52.1%
Relational (4L) 90.5 % 9.5% 28.6%
Results have shown that students have performed below average on items studied in previous grades and
have performed better in executing multi-structural items. That indicates that the abilities of student to explain,
define, make lists, visualize and make decisions have been acquired relatively well. Performance of relational items
has been executed very poorly. This has shown that the abilities and skills of student to perform items of relative
difficulty that require the performance of mental procedures as analyzing, comparing, revealing of cause,
determining relationship and patterns have been weak. Here it indicates the need for mathematics teachers to
improve their students’ abilities and skills to perform items and tasks that would develop their mathematical
thinking and reasoning, experiences of mathematical modeling and identification of patterns and teach their
students the methods and approaches to solve these kinds of problems and items in addition to training students to
acquire knowledge and skills outlined in mathematics standard.
78.4% of students who have successfully performed level 2 (2L) items of mathematics have also
successfully performed on problems and items from number and numeracy domain. Whereas students who were
able to resolve problems in probability statistics have performed items in 2 levels with the performance success rate
of 40,3 %s. It has been evident that students have been able to perform unstructured items of number and numeracy
domain. Students who have been able to perform successfully items in level 4 or the tasks of most difficult level
have performed well all items in all domains successfully.

The mean performance percentage of students who have demonstrated a success rate higher than 90% in
mathematics was 93.6%. These students have demonstrated an average successful performance rate of 69.7% in
reading. Students who study well or got higher assessment rates in mathematics have shown satisfactory
assessments in reading as well. Mathematics education predominantly develops mental skills as summarizing,
analyzing and comparing. It also proves the belief that students who have a solid basic knowledge in mathematics
can successfully study in any other subjects. Therefore, greater yet increased attention should be rendered to the
teaching of mathematics in primary education.
It is assumed that the general level of mathematics education have been lower than the standard
implementation average that might be related with the fact that education standards, content framework and
teaching curricula have just commenced their implementation shortly after their renewal. It also proves our
assumption that learning achievement of mathematics is directly related with reading. A student who is able to read
and comprehend well indeed has also been doing well in mathematics, and his/her learning achievement is better
and competencies are acquired at higher levels. Therefore, it clearly indicates that students should be taught first of
all skills and abilities to read and comprehend, as well as read fast and properly, and be able to explain and express
what they understand. The aim of the analysis of results and outcomes of this assessment study has been the efforts
to identify reality and ways of improving learning achievements further, but not assess someone.
2.3 FINDINGS AND RESULTS OF READING
Results of the assessment study have been analyzed to identify the general level of reading of students and
their results in each domain and cognitive levels.
The reading section in each survey booklet included 23 items to test listening and reading skills and writing
a story on a visual prompt provided and additionally, one set of 12 task items from the international PIRLS 2006
study of learning achievement assessment. The international section included 6 multiple-choice questions and 6
open ended questions and tasks related with reading of a text and test summarizing skills of students. Analysis of
the results of reading items could be carried out in two distinct ways.
First, analyses of the results have shown that the mean percentage of performance scores, including
international items, was 41.2%.
Figure No. 8. Distribution of Performance Students (inclusive of international test items)

Number of students
Score
Second, if the percentage of the mean performance scores were estimated without including international
test items the mean percentage of performance scores was 48%.

Figure No. 9. Distribution of Performance Students (not inclusive of international test items)
Score
When the results of the reading of primary education which are shown in Figures 8 and 9 above are
compared, and reveal that students have not been able to perform well in the international reading items. If
international items are considered alone, the mean percentage of their mean performance score has been 31.6% and
it is 16% lower than the analysis of performance results estimated without including international items. That
occurrence has indicated that in Mongolian language classes at the primary education level we lack performance of
similar tasks and items with the same design and calibrations and content which would require the same level of
abilities. It has also been assumed that the below average percentage of performance scores of international items
might be related with the specifics of national teaching structure and methodology.
It has also been considered how the type of items performed by students is influencing the results of the
study. 26 questions or 74.3% of the total of 35 items of the reading section of the test were multiple choice
questions and 9 questions or 25.7% were open ended. The mean performance score of open ended questions were
46.7% and the mean performance score of open ended questions were 36.3%.
25% of students involved in the assessment study have performed 60% and above in the multiple choice
section. In carrying out performance analysis of 9 open ended questions, 18.3% of all students have performed 60%
and higher and these 9 questions included tasks to determine the main ideas and topics of a text, the main and
underpinning concepts of the passage, defining the main points and ideas and do creative writing. It indicates that
students in primary education have been performing poorly in obtaining skills such as analyzing texts, determining
the main ideas and defining its structure, creative writing in the proper style, structure and format, summarizing
texts.
Test included 5 questions to assess listening and results have shown that the mean percentage of the
performance scores were 47.3%. Students have achieved 53.9% of the mean performance scores in performing 15
tasks in reading.
To assess students’ creative writing skills they were each given a drawing titled “How I learned to play
chess” (see below), and topics «My Friend», «Summer Vacation» and a task of a creative writing within 35-40
words. The drawing has been plotted to trigger stimuli in students to engage in creative writing within a wide range
of themes including one as the difference between urban and rural lifestyles, nomadic and settled life, industrial and
environmental, developmental conditions of the country, property, ownership, etc.

Picture No. 1. The picture is used in the survey
It should be noted that the mean percentage of students’ performance scores in creative writing skills were
presented at 41.9% indicating that creative writing is a part of language use and application has been executed by
students was not satisfactory. Inclusion of this type of item in national assessment for the first time has been both
innovative and potentially applicable approach to be practiced in teaching at primary education levels. That
indicates that teaching of meaning and structural domains have mostly prevailed over to modification and cultural
domains which largely require language application but ones which have been mostly neglected in teaching of
Mongolian language at primary education level. Students not have been able to acquire creative writing skills due
to an insufficient amount of time allocated for performing creative writing tasks in the last years and as a result led
students to do poorly in gaining such skills as expressing of what was understood through reading, writing proper
story using grammatically correct and structurally sound language.
An assessment scheme to evaluate skills and abilities such as expressing the main idea from a selected
theme and content framework; writing grammatically proper and structurally sound language have been used in
order to define creative writing skills of students to write a story based on a visual.
The mean percentage of performance scores achieved by students in an integration of theme and contents,
and creative writing skills used as the initial criteria of essay/story writing was at 39%; 40.2% for correct use of
words and structure; and 45% for grammar respectively.
It is required and needed to develop skills for children to express themselves in writing and speaking at
primary education level. However, teachers pay less attention to creative writing in their teaching and assess
students by their expository writing in reality. In other words, students are taught mostly knowledge and theory and
less attention is paid to skills related with the actual use of language as creative writing and sound writing skills or
use of correct, relevant words and structure, grammatically correct language. That point has been emphasized
repeatedly during interviews held with aimag methodologists in charge of primary education.
The content of each domain has been taken into account in designing survey blueprint. (AD-58 items
89.2%, BD-4 items 6.2%, CDD–3 items 4.2%)

Table No. 18. Percentage of mean scores of performance of students in each language domain
Domain Percentage share of students with Percentage share of students with Percentage of mean
Content (AD) 80.4 19.5 41.4
Structure (BD) 65.2 34.7 36.7
Modification, culture (CDD) 75.5 24.4 41.9
Items to assess skills such as recognition of passages from structural domain, finding and distinguishing
text parts have been performed unsatisfactorily when the mean percentages of performance scores of students in
each language domain were analyzed. Items of content domain have been included most importantly to assess
learning achievement of primary level students in reading. This was not emphasized and attention was not paid
within this assessment study. Students who have been able to perform items from content section well were also
skilled to execute well items from other sections that were satisfactory. It means that if a text is well understood or
comprehended by students then they are able to use their previous knowledge in new conditions. Therefore,
particular attention has to be paid to the delivery skills to students for listening and reading of texts, expression of
what has been comprehended and text analysis. In addition to that, students should be engaged in the performance
of items to check their mastery of such aforementioned skills.
Primary education teachers of Mongolian language should study each domain of the standard content and
be concerned with teaching and the delivery of information and knowledge systematically, and present information
in a well-balanced manner to teach every domain and have their students acquire the critical and creative thinking
skills.
Uni-structural test items included tasks such as finding the main ideas and subjects of a text, identifying
additional or underpinning ideas of a text, finding ideas in each text sections, defining the main points and ideas,
finding meaningful links between language units, defining the purpose of sentence utterance and recognition of a
passage. Multi-structural test items included tasks to assess student’s skills as distinguishing between themes, main
and additional ideas of a text, finding of main/core and key words, phrases, distinguishing passage of similar and
opposite meanings of sentences. Relational test items included tasks to reveal skills as determining the sequence
and order of a content, correct matching of relational conclusions, finding true and false conclusions and
responding to questions of ‘who’, ‘why’, ‘when’, ‘where’, and ‘how’. Extended abstract test items included tasks to
assess skills such as requiring students to write a conclusion to an extended abstract item, fill-in-the-blank, creative
writing and expressing the main ideas of a text with an idiomatic phrase.
Table No. 19. Percentage of Mean Performance Scores of Each Level in Reading Items
Percentage share of students with Percentage share of students with Percentage of mean
Levels
Uni-structural (2L) 86.4 13.6 36.7
Multi-structural (3L) 56.1 43.9 50.5
Relational (4L) 67.9 32 47.4
Extended abstract (5L) 79 20.9 42.3
Students have performed previously covered or recall level items at below average than the standard
implementation, whereas multi-structural items have been performed above average. From there it shows that
students have been performing relatively well in showing skills such as comprehending hidden meanings by
comparing several notions and recognition and identification links between them. Students have shown that they
have weak skills in performing items of relative difficulty such as analyzing and comparing, revealing of a cause,
finding relationship and patterns, providing conclusions and creative writing. It is recommended that teachers
should pay greater attention in teaching reading to their students of items and tasks that would help their students
develop their skills of reading, abstract thinking, observation and identify patterns and having their students to
perform explanatory and creative writing tasks.
Students have performed reading items of uni-structural level unsatisfactorily (2L). Uni-structural level test
items have been mainly tasks which included skills such as finding main ideas and subject of texts, and defining
features, and students have not performed these type of international items successfully as well. The mean
percentage of mean performance scores has been 43.5% when performance scores of international items were
deducted. It indicates here that reading skill is somewhat incomplete and poorly developed. Students who have
performed successfully the most difficult items of level 5 in reading have also successfully performed test items of
other domains as well.
It is assumed that the general level of reading being lower than the standard implementation average might
be related with the fact that education standards, content framework and teaching curricula have initiated its
implementation shortly after its renewal. It also proves our assumption that learning achievements of reading
acquired by students’ are directly related with the level of mathematics education. A student who is able to read and
comprehend well has also been performing better in learning achievement, and has potentially higher possibilities
to acquire information and knowledge. Therefore, it clearly indicates that students studying at the primary
education level should be taught properly and master the following skills and abilities such as high level of
listening and reading, and sound explanatory and expressive skills.
If performance of items of reading are analyzed, skills of 4L and 5L levels such as the ability to concentrate
one’s attention on what is being read or listened to, distinguishing between what is important and what is not,
comprehension of links between content parts, finding relational causes, and comparative analysis to provide
conclusive remarks by comparing own viewpoints with text ideas have been acquired by students relatively poorly.
In general, it is observed that teachers, parents and guardians do not pay sufficient amount of attention to the
development of reading skills of their students and children. Adults have been emphasizing their children’s correct
and fast reading techniques but not to reading which has been supported by assessment study findings.
2.4 RESULT OF STUDY IN MATHEMATICS AND READING OF KAZAKH STUDENTS
Kazakh represent the largest minority group in Mongolia. The majority of ethnically Kazakh Mongolians
live in Bayan-Ulgii aimag, and they comprise of 4.4% of the total population. Kazakh Mongolians consist of 5% of
the total population between the ages of 0-147. 10% of Khovd aimag(province) are Kazakh, most of which live in
Khovd soum (county).
One of the purposes of the study was to compare Kazakh language students to Mongolian language
students, For this reason, 36 Kazakh language schools in Bayan-Ulgii aimag, and one middle school in Khovd
aimag, Khovt soum were included in the study. This includes almost all Kazakh language schools, and comprises
15.3% of total test takers.
Math and Civics test conducted by EEC from 2004-2006 was not conducted in Kazakh language, which
may have accounted for their lower scores. Hence, for the current study, 1,000 test booklets were translated into
Kazakh language.

2.52.5 Picture 2. Kazak test participant’s location.
The average test score for Mongolian language students was 43.3, and the average for Kazakh students was
32.9. Male Mongolian language students’ average score was 42%, and male Kazakh language students’ average
score was 32.7. Female Mongolian language students’ average score was 44.6%, and female Kazakh language
students’ average score was 34.2.
The average math score for Kazakh language students is 36.4% for males, and 36.1 for females. These
numbers are 9.7-11.4% lower than Mongolian language students’. The average math score for the total Kazakh
students was 36.2%, which is 9.5 % lower than the Mongolian language students.
The average Reading score for Male Mongolian language students is 39.5, and 43.8 for females. Kazakh
language students’7 average Reading score was 28.7 for males, and 32.9 for females, which is 10.8% lower than the
Mongolian language students.
Figure No. 10. Comparison of Learning Achievement of Students who study in Mongolian and Kazakh
languages in Mathematics and Reading Comprehension
Mathematics Reading Comprehension
In Mongolian language In Kazakh language In Mongolian language In Kazakh language
The average Reading score was 43.2% for Mongolian language students, and 31.7% for the Kazakh
language students.
Table 20. Below is the result of students’ academic success by location of school.
Mathematics Reading
Location
Mongolian Kazak Mongolian
Kazak Language
Language Language Language
Students
Students Students Students
7
Analysis of the status of Kazak Children’s’ education, Great Britain Children’s foundation, 2005

Unit 30.1 31 30.1 27.8
County 35.6 38.1 34.9 32.9
Province Capital 47.9 35 42.5 29.3
Capital 54. 0 - 47.4 -
Academic performance is higher for Mongolian Language students in more densely populated areas, but
academic performance for Kazakh language students are higher in county capitals.
The average score for the multiple choice math questions was 40.3% for Kazakh language students, which
was 11% lower than Mongolian language students. The average score for Kazakh language students for the open
math questions was 25%, which was 10% lower than Mongolian language students.
The average score for the multiple choice reading questions was 36.1% for Kazakh language students,
which is 10.8% lower than Mongolia language students. The average score for Kazakh language students for the
open reading questions was 25.7%, which was 10.8% lower than Mongolian language students. The average score
for individual questions was 28.6% which is 9.5% lower than Mongolian language students, and the average score
for grouped questions was 34.2%, which is 13.8% lower than Mongolian language students. Average score for
reasoning questions was 24.8% which is 16.6% lower than Mongolian language students. Average score for
abstract questions was 37.6% which is 7.7% lower than Mongolian language students.
The average score for the Language meaning questions was 22% for Kazakh language students, which is
10.8% lower than Mongolia language students. The average score for Kazakh language students for the Language
Structure questions was 17.5%, which was 19.1% lower than Mongolian language students. The average score for
Figurative Language and Idiom questions was 35.4% which is 5.7% lower than Mongolian language students.
The Kazakh language students’ average composition score for the essay based on a picture was 34%, the
style score was 33.3%, and the spelling score was 39%.
This shows that we need to pay more attention to improving Kazakh language students’ language ability.
The average score for the individual type math questions was 50% for Kazakh language students, which
was 15% lower than Mongolian language students. The average score for Kazakh language students for the group
type math questions was 41.4%, which was 10.9% lower than Mongolian language students. The average score for
the math reasoning questions was 22.7% for Kazakh language students, which was 16.6% lower than Mongolian
language students. For the individual type math questions, both Kazakh and Mongolian language students
performed relatively well when compared to performance on other types of questions.
The average score for addition Math questions was 42.3%, which is 10.7% lower than Mongolian language
students. The average score for algebra math questions was 27.1% for Kazak language students, which was 9.1%
lower than Mongolian language students. The average score for Geometry was 41.1, which is 8.9 % lower than
Mongolian language students. This comparison shows us that Kazakh language students score lower on all types of
test than Mongolian language students. This requires us to pay more attention to the quality of education for
Kazakh language students, and take action to improve the situation.
We introduced the level of familiarity with the test subject, and categorical analysis of education.
This study indicates that Kazakh language students have many barriers preventing high academic
performance, including: school environment, dormitory conditions, undeveloped infrastructure, unavailability of
books in their native language, teachers’ relatively low education level, no standardized evaluation of schools far
from county and unit centers, not having a consistent advisor, inadequate training tools, high education costs, and a

low standard of living. These barriers were discovered from feedback from school administrators, head teachers,
teachers, parents and guardians, and students through the process of the study.
2.5 ITEM ANALYSIS OF MATHEMATICS
In addition determining learning achievement levels of students, and identifying ways of how the content
of primary education standards, curriculum framework of teaching content, training program and methodology of
teachers have been affecting learning, item analysis has also been aimed at providing analysis of items own
qualities to reveal learning achievement of students. Test items have been developed based on the cognitive SOLO
taxonomy approach and item data has been analyzed by RASH model analysis of Conquest software. In relation to
each content framework, structure and quality, the item analysis has been carried out for each performance item, for
each study booklet, for each section, for each level and type along with analysis of their interrelations.
The mean percentage score for each booklet has been quite similar when the performance of mathematics
items has been considered for each booklet. It could be concluded that the development of questions and tasks in
each survey booklet has been carried out at a similar level.
Figure No. 11. Learning Achievement in Mathematics by Each Booklet
Survey booklets
Each item has been analyzed in terms of its level of difficulty (P) and discriminate (D). Examples of such analysis
are given for survey booklet No.4.

Figure No. 12. Item Difficulty Analysis of Booklet No.4
Out of all test items included in Survey Booklet Four, 4 items were difficult, 2 items were easy and 22
items were of average level when the level of item difficulty for survey booklet No.4 has been considered. The
most difficult item No. М5В3_06 was an item from number and numerical section, with multi-structural design of
multiple-choice questions. That task was aimed to test the skills related with locating coordinates of a point on a
frame of reference. The easiest item No.М5S2_03 belonged to number and numerical section, with uni-structural
design and open ended questions, which was aimed to test student’s comprehension, correlation/equation and
comparison skills of data given in a bar diagram and to identify their differences.
Figure No. 13. Discrimination of Items in Booklet No.4
4 test items had poor discriminated abilities whereas other test items have been developed with good
discriminated ability when this criterion of items has been considered. When considering an item No. M5С4_06
with poor discriminated ability, it was an item that belonged to open ended questions, from probability section and
of relational level item. This item has also been a difficult task. It was a task to find numbers which would meet
concrete terms and conditions. Also item No. M5С4_05 which also had poor discriminated ability belonged to the
probability section was a relational and multiple-choice question. Since it has been an item to test thinking skills of
students and was of relative difficulty might have been performed unsuccessfully.
32.1% of the items of mathematics were bridge items. 22.2% of these were international questions and
66.7% were combined. The skills of formalization, to change the information as picture and diagram, finding the
relation, to review, to count the possible opportunities were determined by bridge items.

As a result the students got an average of 5.17 points instead of a maximum of 10 points. 6.2% of all
students completed all bridge items correctly and 2.4% of all students completed all bridge items wrong. 44.9% of
students completed the bridge items above 60%. The students completed daily regular problems above 80%.
To summarize, items that belonged to the probability section and to open ended questions were computed
by students inadequately. It might be related to the fact that students have have not understood the terms of math
problem given or they have not been performing these type of problems often. Futher, in teaching primary
education mathematics students should be more engaged in performing math problems of open ended, relational
and extended abstract levels to develop their mathematical reasoining and thinking.
2.6 ITEMS ANALYSIS OF READING
The performance of reading items have been analyzed in relation to each item, survey booklet, section,
level and type along with the analysis of their interrelations.
The mean percentage of performance scores for each booklet has been quite similar when performance of
reading items for each survey booklet were compared. A conclusion can be made that test items in each study
booklets have been developed at similar level.
Figure No. 14. Performance of Reading Items (in each booklet)
Survey booklets
Each item has been investigated by the level of its difficulty (P 8) and discriminated ability (D9). Item
difficulty level has been shown below examples of items taken from survey booklet No.6.
8
Difficulty
9
Discrimination
Figure No. 15: Item Difficulty in Booklet No.6
In considering items in Booklet No.6, it has revealed that 6 items were of difficult levels whereas 7 items
were easy. In analyzing the 6 difficult level items of multiple choice, 3 items were from international test and 3
items to test listening. The poor performance achievement of students in doing items for listening is most likely
related either the type of items were never performed or with the weak level of their listening. Also poor
performance of international test items might be related either with the incomplete understanding of the terms
and conditions of item task or the idea of a text. The majority of students have not acquired the reading that
would require reflective thinking on what has been read, comparative correlation with own previous knowledge
and viewpoints, provision of personal judgment, and recalling or retelling of a text to oneself and others and
communication skills. The most difficult item No. R5A1_07 has been to test the skills of finding additional,
underpinning idea of a text that belonged to the language content section, with a uni-structural level and of
multiple choice questions. However, the easiest item No. R5В3_02 has been from content domain, with
relational level, multiple choice questions designed to identify the order and sequence of text parts. These two
items were international test items.
Figure No. 16: Discriminant Ability of Items in Booklet No.6
Items No. R5A1_07 and R5A1_14 were with poor discriminate ability, but were also the most difficult
tasks. These two items were multiple choice international test items and students most likely have guessed their
answers due to not being able to understand item terms and main idea of a text.
17% of the items of reading were a packet of items with The Clamp of clay, which from international
program PIRLS and it was bridge item. Determination of the sequence and structure of first parts and finding of
main, additional and aimed meaning of the texts t were determined by these open ended 6 and multiple-choice 6
items.
An analysis of how the performance of reading items were carried out by taking into account such basic
learning activities as selection of reading themes, seeking necessary materials, reading for oneself or to others,
reflective thinking over what has been read, comparative correlation with own previous knowledge and viewpoints,

and provision of personal judgment, application in own life and practice, memorizing of a selected text, performing
dictation, creative writing/paraphrasing, similar/imitative writing, essay writing, selection of a essay topic, seeking
related materials, drafting, refining and polishing up writing, finalization of a writing by analysis of own and others
writing and provide an assessment.
2.7 SKILL LEVELS OF MATHEMATICS
Levels of mathematics and reading have been established based on study findings of international learning
achievement studies establishing benchmarks. A comparative analysis of national studies carried out in countries as
Vietnam10 and Serbia11 have been compared and analyzed in establishing benchmark levels of mathematics skill.
All mathematics and reading items have been analyzed by the ConQuest program to identify their difficulty
levels12. In devising levels of mathematics skills all items included in the assessment study have been listed in
accordance with their level of difficulty and then were divided into 5 levels and mathematics skills associated with
each item have been identified. These levels were meant to establish in detail the acquisition of knowledge and
skills by students required in primary education. This enables to identify what students could do and what they
could not do and also provides a possibility to establish levels of skills in mathematics. Further, it requires study
and research on these issues in detail more comprehensively.
Table No. 21. Competency Levels in Mathematics
Competenc
Mathematics skills
y Levels
Writing decimals in numbers/digits; putting numbers in ascending order; applying feature of

Level 1
multiple-digit numbers to be divided into four; dividing simple shapes into equal parts;
determining of patterns in positioning of shapes; to be able to calculate the area of a rectangle;
Creating expressions with unknown element; reading and understanding information given by
column/bar column diagram and finding the meaning of number expression; writing decimals in
Level 2
numbers; reading/interpreting and comprehending of data given in bar diagram; finding meaning
of a number expression; writing decimals in figures, recognizing and naming angles; be able to
calculate volume and interdependence between measurements of a right-angled parallelepiped;
Writing of mixed numbers and calculating their sum; finding the distance between points using
scale; calculating of unknown element/quantity in an equation; calculating quantity of an
Level 3
expression with unknown element; calculating a number and matching to a percentage; be able to
estimate repetition and identify interdependency;
Finding number of all possible segments that can be established when connecting between all
Level 4 given points; transferring units; determining a variable by using given conditions; be able to
calculate problems that are interdependent;
Counting number many multiple-digit numbers; writing down all possible three-unit numbers
which would maintain truth of given terms; finding out coordinates of a point on frame of
Level 5
reference; to be able to solve a math/word problem with two and more steps using
interdependence of time, area and weight units;
10
“Reading and mathematics Assessment study” Volume 2., The World Bank, August 2004
11
Grade Three national assessment of student achievement, Belgrade, Jan 2005
12
Level of Difficulty is performance results of students drawn by a program. Here it is defined in accordance with IRT theory.

Figure No.17 below shows how all items of assessment study have been divided into 5 difficulty levels.
Figure No. 17. Classification of Mathematics Items by Competency Levels
The above classification shows that students have acquired skills in levels 1-3 better than those in levels 4-5. In
other words greater attention should be paid in teaching of mathematics to the development of those relevant skills
in students needed to determine number of all possible segments that can be established when connecting between
all given points, transferring units, determining a variable using given conditions, solving problems on motion,
solving interdependent problems, counting number of multiple-digit numbers, writing down all possible three-unit
numbers which would maintain truth of given terms, finding out coordinates of a point from a frame of reference;
to be able to solve a math/word problem with two and more steps using interdependence of time, area and weight
units.
Table No.13 shows how the level of difficulty of items used in assessment testing relates to skills which have
been sought to be revealed by that item and to the performance percentage of that particular item.
Table No.22. Mathematics Skills Matching Mathematics Items and Performance Percentage
№ Numb Item Diffic Performan

Mathematical skills
er Number ulty ce
1 15 M5S3_07 -1.853 Finding the area of a rectangle; 80.1
2 61 M5C3_07 -1.705 Identifying the sequence in ordering patterns of geometric 77.9
shapes;
shapes;
shapes;
5 10 M5S2_02 -1.577 Interpreting and understanding bar/column diagram; 76.1
6 13 M5S3_05 -1.427 Dividing a square into four equal triangles; 73.7
7 36 M5A2_16 -1.26 Putting numbers in ascending order; 70.9
8 32 M5A3_12 -1.245 Writing decimals in digits/numbers; 70.7
9 8 M5A2_08 -1.202 Arranging numbers in ascending order; 69.8
10 51 M5A3_20 -1.168 Writing decimals in digits/numbers; 68.9
11 29 M5A3_09 -1.132 Recognizing/identifying feature of multiple unit numbers to be 68.8

divided into 4;
12 55 M5A2_24 -1.125 Putting numbers in ascending order; 68.3
13 64 M5D3_07 -1.102 Matching angles with names; 82
14 48 M5A3_17 -1.1 Recognizing/identifying feature of multiple unit numbers to be 67.6
divided into 4;
15 26 M5D3_01 -1.061 Matching angles with names; 81.2
16 45 M5D3_04 -0.985 Matching angles with names; 80
17 7 M5A3_07 -0.962 Finding the meaning of a number expression; 65.4
18 4 M5A3_04 -0.911 Writing decimals in digits/numbers 64.5
20 1 M5A3_01 -0.882 Recognizing/identification of a feature of multiple unit 63.9
numbers to be divided into 4;
22 14 M5S4_06 -0.819 Represent given information in a table with pie chart; 62.8
23 11 M5S2_03 -0.636 Understanding and interpretation of information provided by 59.2
bar chart, comparison of numbers and determining of
differences;
24 50 M5A3_19 -0.495 Based on the estimation of repeating cycle of week days to 56.2
identify weekday order of a concrete day;
25 9 M5S3_01 -0.376 Making up an expression with a variable element; 54
26 57 M5B4_12 -0.344 Finding out unknown number using algorithm; 53.4
27 65 M5D4_08 -0.303 To calculate volume and interdependence between 53
measurements of a right-angled parallelepiped;
28 31 M5A3_11 -0.287 Based on the estimation of repeating cycle of week days to 52.2
29 27 M5D4_02 -0.285 To calculate volume and interdependence between 51.8
30 60 M5B3_15 -0.246 Calculating of unknown element/quantity in a equation; 51.6
calculating quantity of an expression with unknown element;
31 19 M5B4_02 -0.027 Finding out unknown number using algorithm 46.7
32 40 M5B3_09 0.014 Writing down mixed numbers using given drawing and 45.9
calculating their sum;
33 59 M5B3_14 0.031 Writing down mixed numbers using given drawing and 46
34 3 M5A3_03 0.079 Based on the estimation of repeating cycle of week days to 44.7
35 52 M5D4_09* 0.088 Determining the number of all possible segments that can be 69
10
established when connecting between all given points;
36 38 M5A3_21 0.132 Finding a number to match with the percentage; 43.7
37 5 M5B4_07 0.133 Finding unknown number using algorithm 43.5
38 53 M5A3_05 0.214 Finding a number to match with the percentage; 42
39 34 M5A3_22 0.255 Estimating the distance between towns using scale; 41.3
41 33 M5D4_05 0.258 Calculating the volume and interdependence between 41
42 41 M5A3_13 0.281 Finding a number to match with the percentage; 40.7
43 12 M5B3_10 0.297 Calculating of unknown element/quantity in a equation; 40.2
44 22 M5S3_04 0.443 Finding the mean arithmetic indicator/number by using data 37.6
* Half of point used in evaluation when performances of items were estimated and these items were considered that has been performed to
certain extent.
given in bar column diagram;

45 6 M5B3_05 0.481 Calculating of unknown element/quantity in a equation; 36.6
47 21 M5B4_13 0.539 Finding the smallest number out of unknown numbers by using 36.1
given terms and conditions;
48 20 M5B3_04 0.555 Writing down mixed numbers using given drawing and 35.3
51 18 M5A4_18 0.682 Solving a motion problem by transferring time measurement 33.2
unit;
52 66 M5B3_01 0.761 Finding coordinates of a point on frame of reference; 31.6
53 17 M5S3_09 1.03 Finding the amount of money to be spend by using terms of 40
previous problem;
unit;
57 16 M5S3_08 1.337 Solving a math/word problem based on terms and conditions 22.4
of previous problem by using interdependence of area and
weight units;
unit;
59 37 M5B3_06 1.531 Finding the coordinates of a point on frame of reference; 19.3
60 56 M5B3_11 1.546 Finding the coordinates of a point on frame of reference; 19.7
61 44 M5C4_06 1.717 Writing down all possible three-unit numbers which would 17.7
maintain truth of given terms;
63 43 M5C4_05 1.884 Counting and identifying correct number of three-unit 14.9
numbers;
64 24 M5C4_02 1.916 Counting and identifying correct number of four-unit numbers; 14.8
66 62 M5C4_08 2.043 Counting and identifying correct number of five-unit numbers; 14.1
It can be assumed that skills associated with level 1 and 2 have been acquired by students sufficiently since
the percentage of performance of non-difficult items (Item Difficulty is less than -0.8) was estimated at more than
60 %s as can be observed from the data given in table No. 13 shown above.
Distribution of item difficulties were mapped into the same scaling with distribution of students’
performance is shown in Figure No.17 below.

Figure No. 18. Distribution of Difficulty Levels11 of Mathematics Items
Student number: 4750, items number: 66
Difficulty Students Number of items
LEVEL 5
LEVEL 4
LEVEL 3
Average
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 1
THE STUDENTS ARE INVOLVED IN THE STUDY, THEIR AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF THE
MATHEMATIC SKILL IS -0.14.
2.8 BENCHMARKS OF MATHEMATICS
Currently, there are no uniform levels, benchmarks established that are available in our country to assess
mathematics and reading of primary level students as of yet. Based on the study findings, it attempts to establish a
national benchmarks for primary education at the national level for the first time. Furthermore, in the future it is
required to study this approach comprehensively and introduce an assessing achievement for every subject.
11
Order number associated with items where items are listed in order of descending item difficulty.
Benchmark is established to identify knowledge and skills that a certain percentage of students are able to both
perform and acquire. Benchmarks in mathematics have been established using the mean percentage of students’
performance scores in accordance with international approaches.
Table No. 23. Benchmarks of Mathematics
Levels of
Percentage Percentage
achievement Scaled
№ of of non- Comment
benchmarks in score14
performers performers
mathematics
75 percent of students have 395

1 25 percentile 75% 25% performed and 25 % of students have
not performed
50 % of students have performed and 530

2 50 percentile 50% 50%
50 % of students have not performed
25 % of students have performed and 650

3 75 percentile 25% 75% 75 percent of students have not
performed
10 percent of students have 740

4 90 percentile 10% 90% performed and 90 percent of students
have not performed
This benchmark is divided into 4 levels of 25, 50, 75 and 95 percentiles and mapped onto or matched with
estimated scale scores. For instance, the 25th percentile indicates that 75 percent of students have achieved scores
more than 395 and 25 percent of students have achieved less than the scaled score of 395; the 75th percentile
indicates that 25 percent of students have achieved scores above 650 and 75 percent of students have achieved
scores less than 650; and level of 90th percentile indicates that 10 percent of students have achieved scores above
740, and 90 percent of students have achieved less than 740. The percentage of students who have knowledge and
skills that would match particular level is shown in Table below.
Table No. 24. Percentage of Students to Match Benchmarks Levels of Mathematics Achievement
Percentage of student Percentage of Percentage of students

at that particular level students who have who have not achieved
Level of Benchmark achieved that that particular level
particular level
Below than 25th percentile 15.3
1 25 percentile 48.2 84.7 15.3
14
This score is established based on results of this study.

2 50 percentile 27.9 36.5 63.5
3 75 percentile 7.6 8.6 91.4
4 90 percentile 0.9 0.9 99
The table above shows that 15.3% of the total number of students have the knowledge and skills in
mathematics to match below the 25th percentile of the benchmark; 48.2% would match the 25th percentile 27.9%
match average level; 7.6% match the 75th percentile benchmark level; and only 0.9% match the 90th percentile of
the mathematics benchmark. Here it is understood that the upper level benchmark contains the lower level
benchmark.
Each benchmark level of knowledge and skills to be acquired in mathematics competency has been
determined for each section below.

25 PERCENTILE
Students shall be able to understand basic notions of mathematics and perform simple
operations at simple level.
Number and numeracy section – Reading and writing multiple-digit numbers; performing basic 4
operations; application of a feature of multiple-digit numbers to be divided into 4; computation of the
interdependence between week days, months and year; writing decimal fractions in digits; reading and
understanding bar diagrams.
Algebra section - expressing one member of a distance formula /distance travelled, speed, time
elapsed/ by others;
Geometry section – finding or computing the area of a rectangle; dividing a square into four equal
triangles;
Probability, statistics section – distributing simple shapes into groups and identifying patterns or core
features;
Example item code: R5S2_02
Final school year examination of Bat is shown in bar columns. What score did Bat get in Mongolian
language?
А. 80
B. 75
C. 70
D. 90

50 PERCENTILE
Students shall be able to understand the interdependence of major notions acquired and
determine and apply their patterns; and be able to perform arithmetic operations of multi-unit
numbers with up to 9 units.
Number, numerical section – comparing multiple unit numbers and putting them in ascending or
descending order; applying division features of multiple unit numbers; performing of combined operations
a number expressions; drawing or obtaining information from a table.
Algebra section – creative writing of expression with unknown member; finding the height from the
formula of defining volume of a rectangular parallelepiped;
Geometry section – naming, recognizing and matching an angle; finding or calculating the volumes of
spatial simple shapes;
Probability section – Defining of a pie chart by tabular information provided; finding a given information
from a bar diagram and performing of comparing.
Example item No. М5S4_06

75PERCENTILE
Students shall convert and apply the given information from one to another, assess and judge
similar and different features of the problem, solve compound problems, and find the size of simple
geometrical shapes and their interdependence.
Number and numeracy section – solving a problem on motion; converting time measurement
units; solving word problems with two and more step operations;
Algebra section – finding unknown element from given data, expressing unknown element with
mixed number, and finding the meaning of the equation;
Geometry section – transforming geometric shapes following the given directions, determining
the area of a rectangle and solving of two step problem;
Probability, statistics section – counting all possible options of a number given with a limited
amount of number units.
Example item No. М5B3_01

Which one is the coordination for C point?
À. B. C. D.
90 PERCENTILE
Students shall be able to use their knowledge in unfamiliar situation and able to comprehend
ways to consolidate and summarize; be able to apply knowledge acquired in reality; be able to
identify ways to classify notions and definitions and be able to take into account several criteria
in their estimations based on the given criteria; and find number to match given percentage
and solve a two-step, word problem.
Number, numeracy section – finding numbers to match given percentages and solve a two-step
word problem;
Algebra section – to establish the interdependence between the unit of area and measurement of
weight, finding unknown numbers in an expression represented through algorithm and checking it;
Geometry section – expressing the interdependence/correlation, similar and different aspects of

geometric shapes; linking the coordinates with segments;
Probability, statistics section – counting number of true occurrences of concrete terms and
number of segments that have linked points on a given horizontal surface.
Example item No. М5D4_06

Connect dots provided below. Fill in the table with the maximum number of segments you could count
which would end up on these dots.
Table No.:
2.9 SKILL LEVELS OF READING
Reading items have been divided into 5 levels according to their difficulty based on students’ performance
results which have been processed by the ConQuest software.
These levels have been established to comprehensively identify the skill levels acquired by students according
to the primary education standards.
This has enabled to identify the reading of students, what they are able to do and not able to do. Furthermore,
these issues have to be researched more comprehensively in the future.
In devising levels of reading, first, a list of item were produced hierarchically in accordance with the level of
item difficulty that was then classified into reading levels in accordance with the knowledge and skills students
have to acquire in accordance with primary education standards. In doing so it has been revealed that students have
acquired the skills associated with levels 1-3 better than the skills in levels 4-5. In other words, greater attention
must be paid for teachers have their students to acquire or develop skills such as correct matching of relational
conclusions in finding the content order of a text, and provide answers to the questions like ‘who’, ‘what’, ‘when’,
‘where’, ‘why’, and ‘how’; writing concluding summaries, performing various tasks related to the completion of an
idea in a sentence and creative writing and paraphrasing. However, skills could be classified in accordance with
other possible variations and categories different from this classification into 5 levels.

Table No. 25. Levels of Reading skill
Level Reading skill level
To identify the subject, its features, location and place where action is taking place,
Level 1
timing, aim of the sentence, and finding key words;
Finding relationships between the content of language units, and main and additional
Level 2 ideas or points of a text, determining similar and opposing meanings of paragraphs,
writing in grammatically correct language and neatly;
Finding the topic of a text, defining the interrelation of meanings between parts of a
Level 3 text, comparative analysis of features of a subject; expression of a main idea of a text
through an idiom;
Finding the sequence order of the content of a text, correct matching of relational
Level 4 conclusions; finding the correct conclusions; answering questions of ‘who’, ‘what’,
‘when’, ‘where’, ‘why’, and ‘how’;
Writing a summary, complete , to finish a sentence by completing its idea/meaning,

Level 5 completion of an idea from , creative writing, completion of a sentence idea or point,
creative writing and paraphrasing;
Table shown below provides how all test items have been listed in a hierarchical manner according to their
level of difficulties and then classified into 5 levels.
Figure No. 19. Classification of Reading Items into Skill Levels

Table shows how each of the reading items have been listed in accordance with their difficulty indicators in
ascending order or from easiest towards the most difficult. The first column indicates the number associated with
an item.
Table No.26. Skills Associated with Items
№ Number Items Difficulty Skills Text name Performance

1. 42 R5A3_06 -1.719 Finding the main idea of a text A teenage boy 81.1
2. 49 R5A4_03 -1.558 Distinguishing similar and opposite A teenage boy 78.5
meanings of sentences
3. 51 R5A4_05 -1.431 Finding the main idea of a text lullaby 76.88
4. 34 R5A2_16 -1.387 Defining the features of an object sun 75.5
5. 26 R5A2_08 -1.191 Finding additional idea of a text a teenage boy 72.7
6. 17 R5A1_22 -1.002 Finding an additional meaning of a a smile 69.8
text
7. 14 R5A1_19 -0.962 Finding an finding of an idea of part lullaby 70.4
of a text
8. 18 R5A2_13 -0.89 Finding an additional idea of a text baadai 66.8
9. 31 R5A1_23 -0.877 Finding an additional idea of a text a smile 68.5
10. 16 R5A1_21 -0.783 Finding an idea of part of a text baadai 67.7
11. 36 R5A2_18 -0.721 Finding the main idea or point in a a smile 63.8
text
12. 33 R5A2_15 -0.696 Distinguishing similar and opposite sun 63.3
meanings of paragraphs
13. 53 R5A3_01 -0.672 Finding the main idea or point in a reason why birds 62.4
text migrate
14. 37 R5A4_07 -0.646 Expressing the main idea of a text a smile 63.4
through an idiom
15. 55 R5A2_07 -0.634 Finding of a main idea or point in a golden apple 60.5
text
16. 25 R5B3_01 -0.632 Finding parts of a text and golden apple 62.6
distinguishing them
17. 13 R5A1_18 -0.587 Defining the features of a thing or our world 61.5
object
18. 54 R5A1_09 -0.58 Finding an additional idea of a text little lump of clay 61.6
19. 7 R5B1_01 -0.566 Recognizing a paragraph tsookhondoi 60.4
20. 35 R5A2_17 -0.554 Finding the theme of a text Smile 59.9
21. 27 R5A2_09 -0.542 Finding an additional idea of a text Our world 60.4
22. 47 R5A4_01 -0.496 Expressing the main idea of text Golden apple 55.4
with an idiom
23. 2 R5A1_02 -0.352 Finding key words and sentences reason why birds 55
migrate
24. 11 R5A2_10 -0.329 Distinguishing similar and opposite our world 55.1
25. 28 R5A1_16 -0.297 Finding an additional idea or a teenage boy 53.9
concept from a text
26. 41 R5A3_05 -0.208 Finding an additional idea of a text golden apple 51
27. 56 R5B3_03 -0.142 Finding parts of a text and a teenage boy 53.3
distinguishing them

28. 40 R5A3_04 -0.063 Finding the main idea of a paragraph opposite poles 46.4
29. 46 R5A3_10 -0.041 Finding the content relationship sun 49.4
between language units
30. 29 R5A2_11 -0.037 Finding key words and sentences lullaby 48.7
31. 5 R5A2_12 -0.026 Finding an idea of part of a text baadai 47.7
32. 30 R5A1_05 0.011 defining purpose of a sentence golden apple 47.5
33. 44 R5A3_08 0.016 Finding an idea of part of a text baadai 48.3
34. 68 R5A2_14 0.036 Finding an additional idea of a text sun 47.3
35. 32 R5CD401C 0.037 Writing in a grammatically correct my friend 27
language during paraphrasing or
creative writing
36. 58 R5A1_08 0.059 Finding an additional idea of a text little lump of clay 57
37. 4 R5A1_04 0.073 Finding an additional idea of a text tsookhondoi 47.1
38. 71 R5A3_09 0.09 Distinguishing similar and opposite sun 45.4
39. 1 R5CD402C 0.102 Writing in a grammatically correct my friend 26
language during paraphrasing or
creative writing
40. 20 R5A1_17 0.112 Finding the content relationship our world 46.9
41. 15 R5A1_01 0.114 Finding an idea of part of a text reason why birds 45.1
migrate
42. 59 R5CD403C 0.118 Writing grammatically correct my friend 25
language while paraphrasing or
writing creatively/an essay
43. 50 R5A2_02 0.13 Finding a topic or theme of a text tsookhondoi 44.1
44. 62 R5A1_20 0.148 Finding an additional idea of a text lullaby 47.8
45. 52 R5A1_10 0.154 Finding an additional idea of a text little lump of clay 47
46. 21 R5B3_02 0.155 Establishing a sequence order of little lump of clay 52
events in a text
47. 39 R5A4_04 0.161 Finding the content relationship our world 44.2
48. 19 R5A3_03 0.199 Finding the content relationship opposite poles 42.6
49. 23 R5A4_06 0.291 Finding the main idea or point in a baadai 42.2
text
50. 3 R5A2_03 0.325 Finding the main idea or point in a tsookhondoi 39.5
text
51. 64 R5A2_01 0.415 Finding the content relationship reason why birds 68.7
between language units migrate
52. 70 R5A2_05 0.472 Finding an additional idea of a text opposite poles 36.6
53. 63 R5A1_03 0.567 Defining the features of a thing or reason why birds 35.6
object migrate
54. 67 R5CD401B 0.571 Writing neatly during paraphrasing learnt how to play 29
or creative writing chess
57. 12 R5CD401A 0.658 Creative writing based on visual summer vacation 27

prompt
prompt
prompt
60. 69 R5A3_07 0.68 Finding the content relationship lullaby 31.9
61. 38 R5A3_02 0.72 Finding key words and sentences tsookhondoi 30.9
62. 22 R5A2_04 0.798 Distinguishing similar and opposite Opposite points 29.4
meanings of paragraphs
63. 8 R5A1_11 0.884 Finding an additional idea of a text little lump of clay 28.4
64. 57 R5A1_06 0.92 Finding an idea of part of a text little lump of clay 25
65. 10 R5A2_06 0.928 Finding a core and key words and Opposite poles 26.8
sentences
66. 24 R5A1_13 0.936 Finding additional idea of a text little lump of clay 43
67. 61 R5A1_15 0.962 Finding additional idea of a text little lump of clay 28.3
68. 60 R5A1_12 1.031 Finding additional idea of a text little lump of clay 41
69. 48 R5A4_02 1.291 Finding idea of part of a text little lump of clay 23.09
70. 9 R5A1_14 1.695 Finding intended purpose or point of little lump of clay 17.3
a text
71. 6 R5A1_07 2.228 Finding additional idea of a text little lump of clay 11.1
The distribution of item difficulty has been mapped onto the same scaling with the distribution of students’
performances as shown in Table No.19 given below.
Figure No. 20. Distribution of Levels of Difficulty of Reading Items, Number of Students and Items12
Students number: 4750, items number: 71
Difficulty Students Number of items
12
Item number in a list where items are listed in accordance with their level of difficulty

LEVEL 5
LEVEL 4
LEVEL 3
Average
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 1
THE STUDENTS ARE INVOLVED IN THE STUDY, THEIR AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF THE
READING SKILL IS -0,14.
2.10 BENCHMARKS OF READING
Benchmarks in Reading have been established based on the mean percentage of performance scores and in
accordance with internationally applied approaches.

Table No. 27. Benchmarks in Reading
Benchmark levels of
reading Percentage Percentage of Scaled
№ Comment
comprehension performed non-performers score13
achievement
75 percent of students have performed

1 25 percentile 75% 25% 409
and 25 percent are non-performers

2 50 percentile 50% 50% 547

3 75 percentile 25% 75% 684

4 90 percentile 10% 90% 758
This benchmark is divided into 4 levels of 25, 50, 75 and 90 percentiles and mapped onto or matched with
estimated scale scores. For instance, the 25th percentile indicates that 75 percent of students have achieved scores
more than 409 and 25 percent of students have achieved less than the scaled score of 409, the 75th percentile
indicates that 25 percent of students have achieved scores above 684 and 75 percent of students have achieved
scores less than 684, and level of 90th percentile indicates that 10 percent of students have achieved scores above
than 758 and 90 percent of students have achieved below 758. The Percentage of students who have knowledge and
skills that would match particular level is shown in Table No.28 below.
Table No. 28. Students involved in the Assessment Study Matched with Associated Performance
Benchmarks
Percentage of student Percentage of students who Percentage of students

at that particular level have achieved that who have not achieved
Level of benchmark particular level that particular level
25 percentile 23.5
50 percentile 44.8 76.5 23.5
75 percentile 29.8 31.7 68.3
90 percentile 1.9 1.9 98.1
Table No.28 above indicates that 23, 5 percent of total students have the knowledge and skills in reading
to match the 25th percentile level of benchmark; 44,8 percent of them match the 50th percentile 29,8 percent match
the 75th percentile benchmark; and 1,9 percent match the 90th percentile benchmark level. Here it should be
13
This score is provided based on results of this assessment study.

understood that the upper level benchmark contains the lower level benchmark in it. Knowledge and skills that is to
be acquired in reading have been identified for each benchmark level and section below.

25 PERCENTILE
Determining a subject of text and its features, place, location and timing of events, and purpose of a sentence;
finding key units; finding main idea of a short passage or fairy tale; finding and distinguishing similar and
opposite meanings of sentences;
Content section – finding the main idea of a text and its parts and additional idea of a text, finding and
distinguishing similar and opposite meanings of sentences;
Structural section – determining/finding and distinguishing structural parts of a text;
Modification section - summarazing and descriptive interpretation of a text;
Cultural section – content of a text, expressing own feelings derived from reading the text to others;
Artistic section of a fiction/passage - reading passages from a child fiction and traditional folklore
dedicated for primary levels of education, understanding and comparing them, and identifying characters
from passages;
Language section of a fiction/passage – fast and comprehended reading of a text, memorizing and solving
riddles
Example item No.: R5B3_01
What is the correct sequence of events from the text?
А. Poor boy has cheated the king by lying. King has given to a poor boy a golden apple. King has given a
golden apple to a boy.
King has sent a message. Nobody could tell a lie.
B. Nobody could tell a lie. A poor boy has told a lie and cheated a king.
King has sent a message. King has given a golden apple to a boy.
C. King has sent a message. Nobody could tell a lie. A poor boy has told a lie and cheated a king.
King gave a golden apple to a boy.
D. Nobody could tell a lie. A poor boy has told a lie and cheated a king. King gave a golden apple to a boy.
King has sent a message.

50 PERCENTILE
Writing cohesively and without mistakes; and finding the topic and main idea of a short passage; finding an
idiomatic phrase that expresses the main idea of a text; distinguishing additional ideas, points and parts of a text;
finding the structure and additional idea of a larger text; finding the main idea of a popular science text for
cognitive purposes; finding key words and sentences; distinguishing similar and opposite meanings of paragraphs
and sentences within a text; finding content relationship between linguistic units and identifying of their
characteristics or features; finding the main, hidden or additional ideas of a fairy tale; finding an idiomatic
expression that expresses the main idea of a text; determining of structure and parts of a text;
Content section – identifying the main idea of a text or passage; distinguishing the finding of the main idea or
point in a text; distinguishing similar and opposite meanings of sentences; describe things and their features;
finding additional idea of a text; finding a topic or theme of a text; finding key words and sentences in a text;
Structural section - recognizing paragraphs; finding and distinguishing structural parts of a text;
Modification section - summarizing and descriptive interpretation of a text, descriptive and summary
interpretation of part of a text;
Cultural section – expressing a content and one’s own thoughts and impressions from a text read to others;
defining the level of a text style; creative writing of a text
Artistic section of a fiction/passage - distinguishing and determining a genre of read passage or fiction; reading,
comprehending and comparison of fiction and folklore dedicated for preschool children and determination of
characters in a fiction; comparing similar and different features; determining the theme of a text read
Language section of a fiction or passage - scanning through a text fast; comprehensive and declamatory reading
of a text
Example item: R5A1_15
What is the main idea or purpose of a text?
А. Human’s soul is changeable as clay.

B. Happiness is invaluable and precious thing which could not be priced.
C. Someone is the happiest if he or she does good things for others and has set own goals clearly.
D. The best method to create the most beautiful thing is to create with clay.

75 PERCENTILE
Finding the theme of a text; determining the content relationship between textual parts; comparative analysis of subject
features and characteristics; expressing the main idea of a text with an idiom; finding the theme, main idea and an
idiom that expresses it from a short fiction or passage, and finding and distinguishing its additional hidden ideas and
parts; finding a structure and additional ideas in a larger text or passage; finding of main idea of a popular science text
for cognitive purposes; finding key words and sentences; distinguishing similar and opposite meanings of paragraphs
and sentences within a text; finding content relationship between linguistic units and identification of their
characteristics or features; determining of a thing or object and its characteristics; finding the main and hidden or
additional ideas of a fairy tale and an idiomatic expression that expresses its main idea; determining structure and parts
of a text;
Content section - finding additional ideas of a text, finding key words and sentences, finding the content relatiship
between language units, defining the purpose of a sentence, finding an idea of a part of a text, finding the a main
idea of a paragraph, finding the content relationship between language units, finding of an additional idea of a text,
distinguishing between similar and opposite meanings of sentences, finding the main idea or point in a text,
expressing the main idea of a text through an idiom;
Structural section - recognizing paragraphs, finding and distinguishing structural parts of a text; determining type
of a text that was read;
Modification section – summarizing and descriptive interpretation of a text; summarizing and descriptive
interpretation of part of a text; paraphrasing content of a text in oral and written form
Cultural section – expressing a content and own thoughts and impressions from a text read to others; defining a
level of text style; creative writing; finding and distinguishing descriptive fictional writings in a text
Artistic section of a passage - distinguishing and determining a genre of a read passage or fiction; reading,
comprehending and comparing fiction and folklore dedicated for preschool children and determination the
characters in the fiction that was read; determining of a theme of a text that was read and retelling it to oneself and
others, determining characters and their features from a fiction or passage that was read and conduct comparative
assessment of their similar and different features
Language section of a passage - scanning through a text fast; comprehensive and declamatory reading of a text
and listening
Example item No.: R5A4_01
Find an idiom that matches the main idea of a text:
А. Visitors return home and the rain stops.

B. If you lose your horse you can find it and get it back but if you said a word you cannot take it back
C. Brother teaches and a sibling listens and obeys.
D. Mountains are covered by snow a folk is burdened by age

90 PERCENTILE
Finding the main theme of a text; determining the content relationship between parts of a text; comparing
characteristic features of subjects; expressing the main idea of a text with an idiomatic phrase; finding the main
and additional ideas of a larger text and ideas from textual parts;
Content section - finding additional idea of a text, finding the main idea or point in a text; finding the content
relatiship between language units; defining an item or object and its features; finding key words and sentences ,
distinguishing similar and opposite meanings of paragraphes , expressing the main idea of a text through an idiom,
finding the main idea of a paragraph, defining the purpose of a sentence, finding of an intended purpose or point of
a text;
Structural section - recognizing paragraphs, finding and distinguishing structural parts of a text; determining type
of a text read; determination of a type of a text read or listened to;
Modification section - summarizing and descriptive interpretation of a text, of part of a text; paraphrasing of a
part of a text in writing and speaking; descriptive paraphrasing of type/genre of a selected text in writing and
speaking;
Cultural section – expressing a content and own thoughts and impressions from a text read to others; defining the
level of text style; finding descriptive fictional writings from a text and explanation of its style and form; creative
writing of a text distinguishing indent and paragraphs; and creative writing of a text with appropriate language to
match and express the genre specifics of a fiction
Artistic section of a passage - distinguishing and determining a genre of read passage or fiction; reading,
comprehending and comparing fiction and folklore dedicated for preschool children and determining characters in a
fiction read; determining a theme of a text read and retelling it to oneself and others in an orderly sequence;
retelling and writing one’s own impressions, assessments and conclusions about the fiction read and listening to
impressions of others; determining characters and their features from a fiction or passage read and comparative
assessment of their similar and different features; explanatory and persuasive speaking with examples
Language section of a passage - scanning through a text fast; comprehensive and declamatory reading of a text
and listening attentively
Example item: R5A1_08

2.11. PERFORMANCE OF INTERNATIONAL ITEMS
Inclusion of international items of mathematics and reading (TIMSS, PIRLS) in the national assessment survey
has enabled national results to be compared with the outcomes of international assessment surveys.
Performance of International Mathematics items:

An attempt has been undertaken to compare the performance of students with the results of international
assessment test by including 4 international mathematics test items. 4 test items from TIMSS 1995, 2003 and 2007
have been included in the national assessment test. In fact, high expectations were placed on the performance
results of 2 test items included from TIMSS 2007, however, since the findings from the assessment study have not
yet been finalized the comparison list could not be released. Regardless an item analysis has been provided below.
Item No. 1: TIMSS 1995 item No. (M5C3_01)14. This was an item from the geometry section and asked students
to identify pattern in sequencing simple geometric shapes. Mongolian students have performed this item with the
average percentage of performance of 0.77%. The performance of this item has been higher than the performance
of students from countries as New Zealand, Israel, Norway, Portugal, Thailand, Iran, Cyprus and Greece.
Table No. 29. Performance of International Test Item L13
Countries Average Standard

error
South Korea 0.93 -0.01
Japan 0.92 -0.01
Nederland 0.86 -0.02
Austria 0.85 -0.02
Singapore 0.85 -0.01
Latvia 0.83 -0.03
Hong Kong 0.83 -0.02
Check Republic 0.8 -0.02
Hungary 0.8 -0.02
USA 0.79 -0.02
Australia 0.79 -0.02
Canada 0.78 -0.03
Ireland 0.77 -0.02
Mongolia 0.77 -0.01
Slovenia 0.76 -0.03
Great Britain 0.75 -0.02
Scotland 0.75 -0.02
New Zealand 0.71 -0.03
Israel 0.7 -0.03
Iceland 0.69 -0.03
Norway 0.66 -0.03
Portugal 0.58 -0.03
Thailand 0.55 -0.03
Iran 0.55 -0.03
Cyprus 0.54 -0.03
Greece 0.54 -0.03
14
TIMSS 1995 item No. L13. ASMML04”ASMM/WHICH SET IN SAME PATTERN (C)
Kuwait 0.45 -0.02

Item No.2: This was an item from TIMSS(M5S3_01)15 in 2003. It was a mathematical problem with a pre-
structural level of difficulty, a multiple choice question. It has been an item to assess the ability of students to create
an expression with unknown element after reading the first mathematical word problem. Mongolian students have
performed this item with an average percentage of 0.54 and performance result were higher than the performance
of students from countries such as Italy, Armenia, Norway, Philippines, Iran, Morocco, Tunis and Yemen students.
Table No. 30 Performance of International Test Item No. M012048
Countries Mean Standard

error
Singapore 0.87 -0.01
Taiwan 0.82 -0.01
Hong Kong 0.76 -0.02
Indiana (USA) 0.75 -0.02
USA 0.74 -0.01
Netherlands 0.72 -0.03
Russian Federation 0.7 -0.02
Belgium 0.69 -0.02
Japan 0.68 -0.02
Cyprus 0.68 -0.02
Latvia 0.68 -0.02
Moldova 0.67 -0.02
England 0.67 -0.03
Hungary 0.65 -0.02
Lithuania 0.65 -0.02
Slovenia 0.65 -0.02
Scotland 0.63 -0.02
Canada (Ontario) 0.63 -0.02
Canada (Quebec) 0.63 -0.02
Australia 0.59 -0.02
New Zealand 0.55 -0.02
Mongolia 0.54 -0.01
Italy 0.53 -0.02
Armenia 0.48 -0.02
Norway 0.42 -0.02
Philippines 0.4 -0.02
Iran 0.38 -0.02
Morocco 0.32 -0.02
Tunis 0.25 -0.02
Yemen 0.21 -0.03
15
TIMSS 2003 item No. M012048.
Performance of International Items in Reading
Reading assessment test has included a text called «Little lump of clay» with 12 set of items which was
selected from international reading testing program PIRLS-2006. Since performance results of these international
test items by Mongolian students have been assessed below the average results of international test performance, it
could be assumed that similar assessment items have not been performed by students in their acquisition of reading
skills. In fact, PIRLS items have required a higher level of reading comprehension skills students. Analyses of
international items are provided below.
Item No. 1: PIRLS 2006 test item No. (R5A1_15)16. This item belonged to the content section and was of medium
level of difficulty and was to assess student’s skills to determine the main idea or point in a text. The average
performance percentage of Mongolian students was 0.28 which ranks it higher in comparison to the performance
results of students from countries such as Indonesia, Morocco, Kuwait and South Africa.
Table No. 31. Performance of International Test Item R011C13M
Countries Mean Standard error

Russia 0.8 0.01
Italy 0.78 0.02
Singapore 0.69 0.02
Latvia 0.68 0.02
Israel 0.68 0.02
Slovakia 0.68 0.02 What is the main message of this story?
Lithuania 0.68 0.02
Canada (British) 0.67 0.02 À. People are easy to knead and shape like clay.
Canada 0.66 0.03 B. There is a great deal of happiness in the world.
Bulgaria 0.66 0.02 C. Everything is happy when it finds a purpose.
Canada (Alberta) 0.66 0.02 D. Pottery is the best way to do beautiful things in
USA 0.64 0.01 the world.
Taiwan 0.64 0.02
Hungary 0.61 0.02
Great Britain 0.61 0.02
Hong Kong 0.61 0.02
Canada (Nova) 0.6 0.02
Scotland 0.6 0.02
Germany 0.59 0.02
Ireland 0.58 0.02
New Zealand 0.58 0.02
Romania 0.56 0.02
Belgium 0.55 0.02
Canada (Cubic) 0.54 0.03
Poland 0.52 0.02
16
PIRLS-2006 item No. R011C13М.
Netherlands 0.52 0.02

Austria 0.51 0.02
Macedonia 0.51 0.02
France 0.5 0.02
Georgia 0.48 0.03
Luxemburg 0.48 0.02
Belgium (French) 0.47 0.02
Denmark 0.46 0.02
Iran 0.44 0.02
Norway 0.44 0.02
Spain 0.43 0.02
Moldova 0.43 0.02
Slovenia 0.39 0.02
Trinidad and Tobago 0.37 0.02
Sweden 0.35 0.02
Qatar 0.31 0.01
Mongolia 0,28 0,01
Indonesia 0.26 0.02
Morocco 0.22 0.02
Kuwait 0.22 0.02
South Africa 0.21 0.01

CHAPTER 3. FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT
In addition to assessing the learning achievement of primary education to reveal the most influencing
factors, questionnaires obtained from teacher, school administrators, students, methodologists in charge of aimag
primary education, parent and guardian representatives have been analyzed against learning achievement. In
undertaking this analysis, research has been carried out whether location, demographic factors and learning
environment (external and internal) were associated and influencing learning achievement. Also an analysis has
been carried out whether there are specific factors having distinctive impact on mathematics and reading separately.
Learning environment17 has become a topic of extensive discussion, thus researchers, scholars and
managers of educational institutions have been addressing this issue with increased attention during the recent
years. Concept and research on learning environment has begun to be studied scientifically since the 1950’s and its
main focus has initially been dealing with the physical environment of learning.
Therefore based on the recognition of the importance of learning environments, a comprehensive analysis has
been undertaken in this report on learning environment distinguishing internal and external components. The
‘Environmental model of a university’ developed by American researchers as E. Turban, J. Merdit (1950) is
necessarily referred to when scientifically based theory of learning environment is considered. That concept
recognizes that “A system consists of three main components as input-progress-output and it exists within concrete
distance from the environment and surrounded by definite boundaries. Hence external environment shall comprise
of environments of nature, politics and legislation, socio-economics, socio-population and information-technology
environments according to the definition of the concept provided by researchers.
In this report learning achievement of mathematics and reading of students have been analyzed in regard to
demographic, and internal and external learning environment factors.
3.1 FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH LOCATION AND POPULATION

(Difference between urban and rural students, gender, Mongolian and Kazakh nationalities)
It has been observed that learning achievement are different among rural and urban students based on the
study results. This study has aimed to distinguish these differences among with attempting to propose possible
measures that could be taken to decrease the gap.
The difference between learning achievements of rural and urban students in urban and rural settings have
been 10 percent in favor of urban students (referred to in chapter No.1).
Analysis of learning achievement factors have been provided below associated with residency and
demographics which has been undertaken in connection with questionnaires taken from students, school
administrators, teachers, methodologists and parents.
The average age of 5th grade students involved in the study from rural and urban schools has been between
11 to 12.
Forty nine point four percent of urban students and 50,2 percent of rural students involved in the national
assessment study were males. The mean percentage of performance scores of urban students have been higher in
comparison to rural students by 10 percent for both girls and boys when learning achievement were compared to
urban and rural and yet by gender differences.
20
Kh. Tsetsegjargal., Researchers perception about learning environment. “Educational reforms and learning environment”
Thematic Scientific Conference. 2007;

Figure No. 21. Link Learning Achievement of Urban and Rural Students by Gender
In analyzing of how learning achievement of students has been associated with their early kindergarten
attendance has shown that the average percentage of performance scores of urban students who attended
kindergarten was 54.8%, and of rural students was 44.1%, whereas the average percentage of performance scores
of students who had not attended in kindergarten was 51.8% for urban students and 39.3% for rural students. This
comparison has shown that learning achievement of students who attended in kindergarten was higher that students
who had not attended kindergarten both for urban and rural children. Learning achievement of children who
attended in kindergarten in urban setting has been higher in comparison to rural setting indicating a link with
differences of urban and rural settings in relation to learning and a child’s developmental environment, skills of
teachers and care and involvement of their parents. Learning achievement of children who had not been attending
kindergarten has been higher in urban setting which is largely associated with local specifics such as poor
employment of parents and guardians in rural areas and poor environment for a child’s development, and a lower
level of access to kindergarten in comparison to urban areas. Study finding have revealed that involvement in
preschool education services has significant impact over the learning achievement of students.
It has been identified that most urban children live with their families and spend little time travelling to
school via public transportation or vehicles whereas rural children live either with their families or dormitory or
homes of their elder siblings and relatives, and spend more time travelling to school either by walking or using
traditional animal (horse) or cart riding upon analysis of students’ living situations and the distance to their schools,
and how much time it is spent when travelling to and from school, and the means of transportation are used. In
considering relationship with learning achievement, performance of students who travel to school using traditional
animal or cart riding has been the lowest (at 29.3%) and the highest (50%) among students who travel using public
transport. It is most likely that children get tired travelling long distances from unable to draw their attention to
homework and lack of free time. The average score of students who walk to school has been 42.3% whereas for
children who are given a ride by a car was 46.9%. 77% or the most of the students travel to and from schools by
walking, 3.8% by a vehicle, and 0.6% by traditional or horse or animal drawn cart, 14.8% by public transportation.
In estimating the average distance and duration of travel students spend about 17.5 minutes for 700 meters from
home to school and back.
In analyzing how learning achievement is related with the place of residency the learning achievement of
children who stay at home with their families has been higher than of children who live either in school dormitory
or homes of their relatives during years of primary education. 8% of 5th grade students who live in rural areas and
1% of urban students have been living in dormitories. It clearly indicates that there is strong requirement for the
drastic improvement of living environment and conditions of students living in dormitories, and as well as training
and child development activities organized in dormitories and increase accessibility and coverage of rural

schoolchildren in dormitories. Also, it should be noted that reading of students who live with their families has
been enhancing as they study advance further in their grades.
Figure No. 22, Where they live mostly during the school year?
In associating learning achievement of urban and rural school students with the availability of the following
items and things found in their dwellings upon investigation, it has been revealed that the difference in learning
achievement to range from 0,13-15,04 among students who possess or do not possess those items and things.
Learning achievement of children who have a TV set in their dwelling has been the highest from those who do not
have TV set by 15,0 percent. However, some studies 21 indicate that learning achievement of children who watch
TV for long hours has been poor. Also internet is not being used much by primary level students and the difference
has been only 0,13 percent. Learning achievement of children who live in dwellings with a supply of electricity for
24 hours and availability of electrical appliances and more comfortable living conditions has been higher from
other children by 0,13-15,04 percent or in average by 6,41 percent. From these comparative analyses it has been
assumed that the availability of those appliances, training inventories and items that would enable students to save
time and live in more comfortable environment which in return would influence positively learning achievement of
students. Favorable atmosphere yet comfortable environment for living have been important factors to impact
learning achievement of students positively.
Figure No. 23. Do you have the following items and things in your dwellings?
21
National Survey of Assessment of Learning Achievement 2006, Report of MEA and EEC

Considering how learning achievement is associated with the availability of books at students’ homes, the
learning achievement of urban students who have had books in number range of 26-100 was 59.6% and 51.1% for
rural students, both of which have been relatively higher than learning achievement of students with no books.
Learning achievement of urban students with no books has been higher of learning achievement of rural children
by 13% which could be related with the greater possibility of urban children to access information from various
other information sources (TV’s, radios, FM’s, internet and publication media). No significant difference has been
revealed among rural and urban areas when a question was asked from 5th grade students whether they could access
internet which might indicate that they have little or no knowledge of using or applying internet sources.
When learning achievement was investigated on how it could be associated with the number of students
sharing one desk in class and different depending upon urban and rural settings it has shown that learning
achievement of 2 students sharing a desk has been higher. However, the difference between urban and rural
students have been 11.5% and it has shown that sitting alone or sharing a desk by three students is not been
appropriate or acceptable.
Figure No. 24. Learning achievement of urban and rural students associated with the number of students
sharing a classroom desk
In comparing the supply of textbooks, books and learning inventories between urban and rural settings, the
learning achievement of students who newly bought mathematics textbook newly was 55.6% for urban students
and 46.1% for rural students. The average performance scores of urban students who own Mongolian language
textbooks were 53.6% whereas for rural students it has been 40.7%. Also average percentage of performance scores
of urban students with new mathematics textbooks provided from the school were 53.7% whereas it was 40.9% for
rural students. Also students who have old books or use a book alone or share between many other students only in
school have outperformed in learning achievement assessment students who have no books at all. It is also possible
that students with new textbooks might have more interest and motivation to study actively.
22.3% of urban fathers and 29.3% of urban mothers have a tertiary level of education, whereas 6,3 percent
of rural fathers and 8,4 percent of rural mothers have a tertiary level of education achievement. Assessment study
findings have shown that higher the level of education of fathers and mothers of students the learning achievement
of their children would be higher as well.

Figure No. 25. Impact of level of education of parents on learning achievement of students
It is associated with better attitude and care of parents with tertiary level of education achievement in
ensuring creation of adequate learning environment and conditions for their children and provision of the necessary
support in promotion of learning motivation and interest in their children, establish good links with schools and
teachers and have better skills in helping them in their study. The average percentage of performance scores of
students with parents who have either primary level of education or no education has been low at 29.7-31% which
could be related with the low level of their knowledge and poor skills and attitude in assisting their children in their
learning and education. No results have been obtained when investigation was made on how employment of
parents is associated with the learning achievement of their children. In fact, 21.3% of fathers involved in the
questionnaire were herders, 17% were unemployed, and 16% were privately engaged in various businesses. In case
of mothers involved in the questionnaire 17.7% were herders, 16.2% were retired and 7.2% were unemployed.
Study findings have shown that the number of mothers that were employed was higher in comparison to fathers but
they retired earlier than their husbands.
Also when the level of livelihood was analyzed in relation to learning achievement of urban and rural
students, the learning achievement of students from families with better living standards were at 51.4% and at
49.4% for families with normal living standards which were relatively higher than level of 39.8% of learning
achievement of students from families with lower living standards.
Learning environment of urban schools has been better than those in rural schools. That has been affecting
learning achievements substantially. For instance, learning achievement of students from 45.5% of schools where
washrooms and corners with water outlet and sink were available has been higher by 7.07% from students who
were studying in schools where not such facilities were available. However, in spite of the compulsory requirement
and need for washroom facilities for students only 10% of urban schools and 37% of rural schools still do not have
any of these facilities at all.
In investigating common sicknesses or health conditions of students involved in the study, 1.3% had
ophthalmological or ocular problems and 1% otolaryngological problems. The nature of health problems could be
in large related to the state of school heating. 39.3% of all schools involved receive centralized heating supply,
38.6% had their own boiler systems and 9% had traditional fire-based stove heating. The probability of rural
children of getting sick has been far greater than children in urban schools since students tend to be affected by
imbalanced temperature conditions in most rural schools where they get either cold or hot abnormally due to lack
of connection to the school centralized heating supply system.
When responses of students to the question of whether they get cold on the way to school and back home have
been analyzed in connection with their learning achievement has revealed or given the following circumstances or
results.

Figure No. 26. Learning Achievement (in association with impact of cold)
When also a question was asked whether students get cold in their dormitories or dwellings where they live
during non-school hours, the learning achievement of students who do not live in cold dwellings were higher than
those who get cold regularly and live in poorly heated dwellings.
In comparing learning achievement of rural and urban students by the teachers’ subject specialization learning
achievement of students of urban teachers have been higher than students of their rural colleagues. When
considering learning achievement by subject specialization of teachers, the learning achievement of students of
primary teachers has been 53.1% for urban students, and 41.9% for rural students whereas the average percentage
of performance scores of students whose class teachers have acquired degrees or certificates in mathematics were
55.5% in urban areas and 45.2% in rural areas, whereas learning achievement of students whose class teachers have
specialized in Mongolian language has been 56.5% in urban areas and 56.3% in rural areas. These results have
shown that learning achievement of students in mathematics and reading who have been taught by subject
specialized teachers has been higher both for rural and urban students.
An analysis of whether the level of education of teachers has been associated or has an impact on learning
achievement of students have shown that the learning achievement of students whose teachers have had completed
secondary education received special professional certificates in education in comparison to teachers who have
their bachelors and master in education was lower. As the education level of teachers was higher the learning
achievements of students were higher accordingly. That implies that the skills and level of teachers’ education
affected the learning achievements of their students, hence their achievements were relatively higher.

Figure No. 27. Comparison of learning achievement by level of teacher education
The learning achievement of rural and urban students were not related to the number of years of teaching
service (for instance, average scores of students whose teacher have had 1 year of experience has been 63%, 62%
by teachers who have had 10 years of teaching experience and 53% for students whose teachers had been teaching
for 42 years etc.).
Learning achievement of students has not been associated so much with who was the manager of school as the
results of the assessment have shown.
Most rural parents have not evaluated their children as talented or well performing students whereas urban
parents have evaluated their children very highly. Evaluation skill of urban parents has been higher in comparison
to rural parents.
Negative incidents tend to happen more in rural schools when the issue of how often incidents of praising,
scolding and violation of student’s freedom by teachers of urban and rural students tend to happen an addition to
surveying of how often students were praised and bullied by their classmates.
Figure No. 28. Difference between urban and rural students in some aspects
It is thought that it has been negatively impacting the students’ motivation and willingness to learn and
hence it affected their learning achievement as well. Since these kind of issues tend to happen more in rural areas
compared to urban it also indicates the need to pay attention to the ethics of rural teachers accordingly.

In surveying the motivation of students whether they are motivated to go to schools through parents stated
that 2.2% of urban students and 3.2% of rural students were not motivated to go to school.
In considering how students have been spending their free time upon analysis of how much time they
spend on doing their home work, helping household chores, looking after their siblings, spending time with their
schoolmates, playing various games and watching TV, parents’ results have shown that rural students have been
spending more time for these activities mentioned above.
Figure No. 29. Learning achievement of urban and rural students in association with their spending of
leisure time
Low level of learning achievement of rural students could likely be related with the poor management of
their free time with more time spent doing household chores and other household duties.
Learning achievement of students who are used to getting someone’s assistance in doing their homework
has been lower compared to those who do their homework independently and without assistance. It might be
related with the fact that those who help them have been not able to provide the kind of assistance that children
needed to think and learn themselves.
3.2 FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH LEARNING ENVIRONMENT (EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL)
School environment plays an important role in student’s learning achievement. When considering learning
environment it has been classified into external and internal environments where law and legislation, finance and
economics, family and social, and a physical environment has been included in the analysis of external
environment. Analysis of internal environment and how it was having impact over learning achievement has
included learning inventories, teacher methodologies; approaches and skills, in-service teacher training,
psychological environment of teaching (psychological environment of collectives and communication), relationship
and interaction between collectives and friends, leisure time and development of student morale.

EXTERNALLY DEPENDENT FACTORS

(Laws and legislation, finance, economy, family, society and physical environment)
Most schools involved in the assessment study or 95.8% of them were studying in public schools.
Considering the learning achievement in these schools, the average scores was 46.5% (499.6) for public schools
and 49.9% (519.2) for private schools. The results have shown that learning achievement of students in privately
owned schools was a bit higher in comparison to students in public schools. It is assumed that small class size in
private schools and higher living standards of students have impacted positive learning achievement of students
studying there.
An analysis of how types of different schools have been impacting learning achievement of their students
has shown that the average scores and scaled score was 43.1% (485.9) for students in schools with conventional,
mainstream teaching program and curricula, and 52.3% (536.9) for students from schools with training programs
of professional orientation and 56.6% (543.8) for students from schools with advanced, in-depth level of study
programs and curricula in select subjects which indicates that the quality of teaching in schools with advanced, in-
depth teaching of curricula in selected subjects have been higher in comparison to schools with regular, mainstream
training program and curricula. It is also most likely to be associated with reality that schools with advance and in-
depth study curricula on select subjects have been following this practice of selecting their teachers and students
based on higher criteria and requirements.
Learning achievement of students varied depending upon location factors.
Figure No. 30. Learning achievement associated with location
In general, schools within the capital city, aimag and soum centers and bags have problems related with
shortage of teaching personnel and poor skill of teachers. Considering the enrollment of teachers in in-service
training seminar and workshop results have shown quite similar outcomes with results shown in Figure No. 30
above. In other words, teachers from bag schools have hardly been involved in in-service training programs. In
addition to training seminar and workshop practices such as monitoring and evaluation exercises being undertaken
by public educaiton administration organizations, advisory and consultancy services, and representatives assigned
from MECS and other institutions with the task to evaluate and assess teaching and learning at schools which in
general, have been providing information, evaluation and inspection for schools less and less due to the location as
it is distanced from the capital city.

Analysis of how school heating and electricity supply have been associated with the learning achievements
of students has shown that mean performance scores of students studying in schools with centralized heating was
52.7% (535) and 47.1% (505) for schools with local heating and 40.9% (467) for students in schools with their own
boiler heating system and 38.6% (454) for schools with conventional heating. Thus indicates that learning
achievement depends upon heating conditions, warmth and comfort level of the learning environment. In other
words students learn better if they do not feel cold. It is obvious that conditions for smooth organization of teaching
and training will be disrupted if rooms and facilities are not well heated and cold since warm interior conditions
impact effective provision of smooth training activities and affects health and hygiene.
Figure No. 31. Learning achievement associated with the heating of school (Scaled scores)
When a question was asked from the school administration about the quality of school building facillities, 33-
40% responded that building and facilities were suitable for utilization and maintaining building facilities require
rehabiliation and repair. 25.2% of school administrators also responded that building foundations, roofing and
ceilings, piping system and electrical cable wiring were apt for utilization. Survey has shown that most schools
have 2 buildings for schooling purposes. Survey results have shown no direct link between learning achievement
and the quality of school building faciliites. Also when the capacity of school building facilities were analyzed, the
average capacity of first school building facilities was able to hold 600 students. 57% of all schools involved were
centrally heated, 77.6% had 24 hour supply of electricity. 50.3% of schools were connected into potable water
supply gridline. 50.3% of schools were connected to the sewage system and 60 percent of schools involved were in
a condition that requires complete rehabilitation. When it was asked whether complete rehabillitation was
undertaken within the past three yearss 60% of schools were not rehabilitated completely at all. 35 schools or
21.2% of schools involved had no exercise facilities and 80 schools or 48 percent had no culture facilities. The
average performance scores of students in schools with culture hall was 50.3% (522) and 42.6% (477) for students
from schools where they had no such facility. It can be concluded from the results that culture and performance of
activities have an impact over students motivation to learning. In clarification of classroom facilities apt for
conducting lessons for entire classes, schools had on average 15 regular size classrooms and a school with the most
number of classroom available had 45 classroom facilities whereas the average number of study rooms for smaller
group lessons was only 3 which indicates that avaibility of smaller rooms for group work has been insufficient
given its ratio of the per number of students in a school.
16.4% of schools involved had no computers available for teachers in primary classes to use for preparing and
use during their lessons and the average number of computers per school was 3-4 computers. When a question was
asked on how often they used computers 84% responded that they use it occasionally or do not use it at all. In
analysis of financial resources for schools in 2007, on average 81.6% of the school budget were resources allocated
from the central and state budgets. The remaining budget of a school was comprised of 4.2% from training fees,

0.4% from school development fund, 1.1% from the support economic activities, 1.3% from operational income of
other activities, 0.5% from donations and assistance provided from local economic entities, 0.5% from donations
and assistance provided by parents, 0.7% by donations and assistance provided by Non-Governmental
Organizations, 0.2% from donations and assistance provided from individuals, 1.7% from donations and assistance
provided from foreign organizations and individuals and 1.2% from other income generated.
Textbooks are the most needed learning tool for students. If textbooks are of good quality then opportunities
for students to learn individually are increased adequately and yet more opportunities are created for students to
study better. For the past few years optional textbooks have increasingly become available for each subjects and
when school administrators and teacher opinions have been surveyed 89.6% supported to abolish this practice of
optional textbooks and stick to one core textbook and only 6% has supported the practice of having optional
textbooks and 2.4% answered that they don’t know. 92% of all teachers surveyed did not supported the practice of
having optional textbooks. 66.1% of school administrators and teachers have evaluated the quality of teaching of
Mongolian traditional script as satisfactory, and 44.8% of them have evaluated skills of teachers as good; 47.9% as
satisfactory. By the Decree No.236, 2007 of the Minister for Education, Culture and Science of Mongolia it has
been provisioned to introduce teaching of traditional Mongolian script beginning 3rd grade and teach it in an
integrated lesson with subjects of Mongolian language, reading and traditional Mongolian script. And in order to
identify how effective that decision has been a question was asked from school managers from what grade it would
be more relevant to introduce subject of a mongolian traditional script to which most of them have answered that it
would be more effective to introduce teaching of traditional script from 5th to 8th grade. (18.8% prefer this subject
from 5th grade; 20.6% from grade 6, and 33.3% from 7th grade) However, 30.5% of teachers believe that it would
be more effective to introduce traditional script to be introduced from 6th grade, and 42% from 7th grade of junior
secondary level.
When an analysis has been made in respect to how learning achievement has been associated with the living
environment of teachers it has shown that learning achievement of students who were taught by teachers living in
housing that is connected into centralized heating system was 51.5% (528) which has been higher than the
performance of students taught by teachers who have been living in other kinds of housing. It is evident that
teachers living in more comfortable living conditions have been having positive impact over their work, interaction
with their students, and provide assistance and influences teachers development, their methodologies and skills.
Availability of electricity, potable and hot waters, car and electrical appliances in teacher homes do not have direct
impact over learning achievement of students. Aslo issues such as the number of hours taught per week and school
shifts teachers work in were not likely reasons to be having impact over learning achievement of students.
62% of teachers have replied that they have been paying increased attention to their school-based professional
development and 80% of teachers have considered in-service trainings and seminars organized locally to be
effective. 89.3% of teachers have responded that it would be very effective if teachers will have in-service training
organized for teachers over a period of one month period in the capital city every 5 years. 62.3% of teachers
currently working are not fully satisfied with their career and if an opportunity with higher salary, bonuses and
other incentives and rewards is offered to them 62.3% answered that they will accept the offer. The average
performance scores of students taught by unqualified teachers were 48.4% (511). However, 59.4% of teachers like
their job and 73.5% of them would not be interested in making career, and 80% of teachers are interested in
developing their professional knowledge and skills. It has shown that though teachers do like their work they
would be interested in such social issues as having increased salaries and additional bonuses.
An analysis of teacher responses to survey questions about their schools have shown that 60% consider their
school buildings and facilities need to undergo major rehabilitation and 40% have replied that the school building
and facilities they work in are in acceptable condition. 68.2% of teachers from schools with dormitories have
answered that their school buildings with should be rehabilitated and 66% responded that the number of students to
be enrolled per class or class size should be reduced. 69.1% of teachers have emphasized the need for the

establishment of teacher development centers whereas 70.5% of teachers responded that they need a room or
facility where they can prepare for lessons and teaching. 82.1% expressed that supply of training inventories,
equipment and computers should be increased and 88.1% have considered that their utilization should be enhanced.
94% of teachers surveyed have answered that items and inventories required for teachers to develop and produce
teaching aids, kits and materials should be allocated for teachers.
29.4% of teachers have evaluated the quality of services provided by school canteen and 23.3% have evaluated
the quality of services provided by their school library as being satisfactory. Therefore, the quality of internal
school services, namely, services provided by school canteen and library should be taken into account at all levels
of educational management and needs to be improved drastically. In analyzing how learning achievement of
students has been associated with the type of dwelling children live in, the performance of students who have been
living in flats with a steady supply of potable hot and cold water have shown better results in comparison to
students living in dormitories with no supply of tap hot and cold waters which indicates that learning achievement
depends directly from the type of dwelling children live in and living conditions and their comforts levels.
Table No. 32. Link between Learning Achievement and Type of Dwelling
Type of Dwelling Scaled

score
1 In ger /traditional felt covered dwelling/ 473
2 In a flat connected to the centralized gridline supply system and tap potable 574
and hot water available;
3 In a flat connected to the centralized gridline system but has no tap potable 523
and hot water available;
4 In public housing which has no connection to the centralized supply system 495
and has water supplied on delivery;
5 In a dormitory which is connected to the centralized supply system and has 467
tap potable and hot waters available;
6 In dormitory which is connected to the centralized supply system but has no 441
tap potable and hot waters available;
7 In a private housing connected into centralized supply system and has tap 514
potable and hot waters available;
8 In a private housing connected into centralized supply system but has no 528
potable and hot water available;
9 In private housing which has water on delivery but has hot and potable 510
water available from the tap;
10 In private housing which has water on delivery but has potable water 473
available from the tap;
11 In private housing which has water on delivery but has no hot and potable 511
water available from the tap;
Learning achievement also directly depend on the level of living standards. It is assumed that this is most
likely to be dependent upon and related with better learning environment, conditions established and opportunities
created in households with higher living standards for their students.

Figure No. 32. Learning achievement associated directly with the level of livelihood
Children with physical disabilities study with normal students together in the same school and classes in our
country. Though it promotes their social integration18, during the study it has been observed that a study should be
undertaken whether care and attention they have been receiving were effective, adequate and well targeted. 5,8
percent of all students involved have had some kind of disability. Most commonly occurring disability, in terms of
share has been related with eye sighte.
Figure No. 33. Percentage share of types of disabilities found in students
Analysis of learning achievement of physically disabled children has shown that children with eye, hearing
and support organ disabilities could manage studying together with normal kids. But care and attention towards
children with mental disorders should be enhanced and improved.
Table No. 33. How learning achievement is associated with children with physical disabilities
Scaled
Kind of Disability Average scores
scores
Mentally disabled 23.2 365
Hearing disability 41.8 472
Verbal organs 30.7 408
Ophthalmology 44.2 486
Support organs 39.7 461
Others 29.8 403
18
Effective since 2006 following Decree No. ... by Minister for ECS.

Analysis of health problems encountered by students has shown that 4.9% have some kind of chronic disease.
And most common health problems and sicknesses include otolaryngological diseases.
Figure No. 34. Percentage Share of Health Problems
Table given below shows how learning achievements have been associated with certain types of health
problems encountered by students and analysis indicates that sicknesses and type of health problems were the
factors that impact learning achievements of students.
Table No. 34. Comparison of students sicknesses with learning achievement
Types of health problems Average scores Scaled score

Stomach 58.9 571
Kidney 48.9 514
Heart 46.3 498
Ophthalmology 45.1 491
Otolaryngology 35.4 436
Psychiatric problems 26 382
Lung 22 359
Others 44.8 490
When issues related with either school drop-out rates or repeating a class were looked at it has revealed that
1.7% of all students who were involved in assessment have had school drop-out problems. Students who had
school drop-out or repeating a year have shown 33.6% (403) of learning achievement in the assessment. Students
do have to undergo repeated study because of failure to succeed in their study and it is affected by many factors
including illness, migration and etc.
Analyses of whether students were orphaned or have not yielded that 0.09% of all children involved were
either full orphans or half orphans. In terms of learning achievement full orphans has shown an average scores at
41.5%, students with no father have performed at 44.1% and students with no mother have shown 41.4%
respectively. Results indicate that learning achievement of children who live with their mothers have been slightly
higher than learning achievement of children who are full orphans or live with their fathers.

When learning achievement of students were associated with the number of students sharing one desk, the
performance of students who share a desk with one other student was higher by 8.12% in comparison to the
performance of students who share a desk with two or more students.
Figure No. 35. Number of students sharing a desk in association with learning achievement
Also when an analysis has been carried out whether chairs and desks occupied by students were comfortable
and convenient, learning achievement of students who responded that their chair and desks are comfortable and
convenient was higher by 10.98% from those children who responded that the chairs and desks being either too tall
or too small. This analysis shows that students need more appropriate and convenient desks and chairs that would
comply with their age and specifics of their physical development.
When analysis has been made whether learning achievement was associated with the location and type of
restrooms students have at their schools it has yielded that learning achievement of students who have their school
restroom facilities indoor was higher by 12.3% than students in schools where restrooms were located outside and
were higher by 19.79% compared to schools that have no restroom facilities.
Physical training is a subject for primary education students is undoubtedly one of the most appealing and
needed subjects. Though most schools have proper exercise facilities it’s no secret that many schools still provide
physical trainings in halls and facilities that are not designed for that particular purpose. Learning achievements of
students from schools with exercise facilities appropriate for provision of physical training was higher by 5.67-
8.41% compared to the performance of students from schools where they had no appropriate exercise facilities or
had none at all.
Most of students of primary education live in families with 2-4 members in it. When an analysis has been
conducted whether learning achievement is associated with the number of members in a family, employment status
of family members and the number of people residing or sharing their homes or dwelling it has shown no
significant link or correlation that impact learning achievement. For instance, the average scores of students living
in families of 12 members was 32% and 27.1% for families of 14 members and has changed to 13.8% for students
living in families of 13 members. As for the employment status of family members the average scores of students
from families where two members have been employed was 45% and 37.1% for students living in families where 7
family members have been employed.
69.4% of students involved in the national assessment have been living in their homes. When the number of
family members sharing the same home has been considered whether it affects the learning achievement of students

it has shown no significant correlation with learning achievement as in the case of employment status of family
members mentioned earlier.
However, when learning achievement has been considered in correlation with the students’ evaluation of their
levels of family living standards surveyed the results were that learning achievement of students from families with
middle income was good or better. Learning achievement of students who have assessed their level of family living
standards as good and average have performed better in comparison to students who have answered as poor and
very bad.
Figure No. 36. Average scores (By level of Living standards)
When learning achievement has been considered in association with hunger among students experienced in
their homes and at their schools it has given the following results. The average performance scores was 31.42% for
those who are always hungry, which has indicated lower performance than of students who have answered that they
feel hungry sometimes or feel hungry outside of or not during lessons and those who feel hungry occasionally by
13.4% which indicates that hunger is the factor that affects negatively to the learning achievement of students.
FACTORS DEPENDENT ON THE INTERNAL ENVIRONMENT
(Physical infrastructure for training, training inventories, teacher methodologies and skills, in-service teacher
training, psychology of teaching, environment for creative actions, relationship and communication between
classmates and within schools, leisure time and promotion of personality development)
When students were surveyed on how long they have been studying together with their classmates 8.8%
responded that they have been studying for the first year, 10% for the second year, 4.8% for the third year, 34.4%
for the fourth year and 41.8% for the fifth year with their classmates at the same school. In fact, it would not be so
well justified to consider that the number of study years by students in the same class does not have significant
impact over learning achievement of students hence learning achievement of students who have studied for 2-4
years in the same class has been higher than those students who have studied in the same class for 5 years.

Figure No. 37. Comparison of Learning Achievement with Number of Years Studied in Same Class
74.8-94.8% of students had possession of necessary clothing items and learning inventories when the
availability of school uniforms, complete set of textbooks for grade 5, warm clothing for winter season and sport
wear for physical training was considered.
Possessions of the following items have not had significant impact over their learning achievement. However,
the following things or factors could be related with the state of living standards of families.
Figure No. 38. Learning Achievement Associated with Material in Possession of Students
35.2% of students own of computers and the average their performance scoring was 52.3% (533) and 64.7%
had no computers and the average performance scores was 45.8% (495). 18.5% of all students had access to the
internet and there has been no significant change observed in learning achievements of students with respect to
ones who have and those who do not have access to the internet. In other words, the availability of computers and
access to the internet are not significant factors that currently impact learning achievement.
However, when availability of books at home, and places of living residence of students has been looked at
whether they impact learning achievement, it has revealed that learning achievement of students who have had
books were higher comparing to those who had no books. Availability of a library with books for reference and use

has had quite a significant impact over their learning achievement. Motivation and interest of students to read have
been growing stronger in accordance with the number of books available in their home libraries.
Figure No. 39. Learning Achievement Associated with the Number of Books at Homes
Students have been spending most of their leisure time during school days on such activities as doing their
home work, reading at their school library, helping out with household chores, taking care of their siblings, meeting
their friends, playing various games, watching TV. However, students have been spending most of their time
watching TV and helping with household chores, when a question was asked on time that was spent for earning
income to support their family livelihood was surveyed.
Figure No. 40. Learning Achievement Associated with the Number of Hours Spent on Activities during
Leisure Time
When habits of spending of their free time was looked at in association with learning achievement the
performance of students who have been spending most of their free time on doing their home work was the highest.
14.9% of students have been spending a certain amount of time for work to earn some money and that has been
affecting negatively in regard to their learning achievement. Meeting friends, playing various games, taking care of
siblings, attending libraries have not been influencing much learning achievement. Helping with household chores
influences student’s upbringing and character development. Most primary education students have not been using
library books but the performance of students who go to libraries and read books have been better and influencing
their learning achievement positively. Learning achievement or the average performance scores of students who go
to libraries 2-3 times per week was 50.5% and for students who have not been reading books in library the
performance has been 47.3%, hence it shows that there is a need for enriching libraries with books and publication
written for children and increase the use of library books by children. Learning achievement of students who have
been spending 1-2 hours a day meeting their friends and doing their homework has been higher indicating that the
practice of giving amount of homework for primary level students which would take about 1-2 hours for them to
complete has been an appropriate amount for maintaining and supporting learning motivation of students. Also
meeting friends for 1-2 hours a day was an appropriate amount of time for students to socialize, however, in other
circumstances it tends to not be useful for meeting and wastes their time. Learning achievement of students who
attend extracurricular activities and other activities, and trainings was higher by 5.6% in comparison to students
who do not.
An analysis of textbook supply in connection with learning achievement shown that purchasing new textbooks
has positive impact on learning achievements.
When parents and guardians have been surveyed with questions about issues related to teachers praising their
children, scolding, violation of their freedoms, being praised by their classmates, or being bullied or beaten by
others at their schools, getting involved in fights and conflicts, using swear words, damaging school assets and
properties, and missing class, they have mostly answered that regular praising or scolding of their children have not
had any significant impact over the learning achievement of their children in this school year. However, learning
achievement of students who have been bullied or beaten by others or have gotten involved in fights and conflicts,
who use swear words and damage school property and assets and miss classes have been lower by 5-10 percent in
comparison to the performance of other students. Being involved in such issues either regularly or sometimes has
been causing for the lack of motivation and interest of students to learn and would likely lead or result to students
not having interest in attending school.
Parents and guardians of primary school students have evaluated the quality of primary education as being
unsatisfactory. The average learning achievements of students whose parents or 51.4% of them have assessed the
quality of primary education as good has been at 49.6% (517). Also 80% of parents have assessed teachers with
master’s degrees as highly experienced and good teachers of the school that their children attend.
In considering in-service teacher training of school administrators staff it has been revealed that 68.4% of
them have attended 1-5 days training on education management issues, 32.1 percent have attended training on
pedagogy and educational psychology, 31.5% on teaching methodology and approaches, 16.3% on computer use
and application, and 15.1% have attended one month training on improving English language and computing
courses. And they have attended the aforementioned in-service training courses on average of 1-5 times. 15.2% of
school administrators staff involved in the surveying have graduated Management programs at the Academy of
Management. However, involvement experience of school administrative staff in in-service training has not been
influencing learning achievement of students much. 57.6% of school administrators have answered as good to the
question of whether they have been paying attention to school based in-service training of teachers, 39.5% as
satisfactory, and 2.6% as they have been paying poor attention to the organization of school based in-service
training activities. Subsequently, when it was asked how the results were 87% responded as having positive results
and 12.8% as not effective. Learning achievements of students from those schools that have been paying a
sufficient amount of attention to school based in-service training of teachers was higher by 6.9% in comparison to
schools that have been paying poor attention to school based in-service training of their teachers. Teachers have
been involved in short term in-service teacher training seminars and workshops on methodologies of basic
mathematics and Mongolian language, pedagogy and psychology, computing and English language programs. But
the qualities of trainings have been inconsistent or variable when they were asked on how learning achievement of
students has been related with their involvement in-service teacher training.
Based on the aforementioned facts a conclusion can be made that in-service teacher training is seen by most
teachers as attending in-service teacher training workshops and seminars. Teachers have been involved in short and
long term in-service trainings organized in the form of seminars and workshops in the capital city, aimag center and
at schools which are being organized in accordance with plans approved and require payments. Results and outputs
of these seminars have been inconsistent and variable depending upon who organizes them. But learning
achievement of students have not been dependent on where training seminars and workshops are being organized,
moreover, short term, high quality, useful, demand driven training seminars could be organized at the schools. As a
priority for training areas teachers need to have in-service training programs organized on teaching methodologies,
pedagogy and psychology, student character development and methodology of evaluation and assessment.
When school administrators were surveyed on whether their school teachers and non-teaching staff have been
involved in ethical issues they have answered that issues and problems related with as being involved in theft or
robbery, drinking alcohol in the workplace, putting up fights, use of swear words, violating students rights and
freedom, damaging school properties, missing work, and teachers coming late for classes or finishing their lessons
early have been occurring regularly. 30.3% of teachers and non-teaching staff are involved in ethical issues
mentioned above. 49.3% of teachers have been missing work, 78.7% have had problems of coming late to class or
finishing their lessons early which has negative affects learning achievement of students. Teachers missing their
lessons have more negative impact over learning achievement of students than coming late to class.
Figure No. 41. Learning Achievement Associated with Teachers missing their lessons and Teachers
completing their lessons early
However, 1.5% of all teachers and non-teaching staff have been involved in theft or robbery, 30.5% of them
have drunk alcohol at the workplace, 3.4% have put up with fights, 36.8% of them have used swear words
offending students, and 12% have had problems related with violating children’s rights and freedom which are all
indeed serious incidents in breach of teachers’ ethical norms and regulations and could negatively affect learning,
upbringing and morale of students.
In addition to teachers and non-teaching staff, school administrators were also surveyed on how often similar
incidents have been occuring among students. Survey results have shown that 4.9% of students have been involved
in theft and robbery, 33.2% have been involved in bullying each other, 22.4% have been putting up fights and
conflicts, 56.3% used swear words and 14% have been involved in issues related to damaging school property in
this school year. Learning achievement of primary school students have had the most negative affects when
students were missing classes. The average performanc scores of students who have not been missing class were
49% and for students who have been missing class the achievement was 36.5%. Involvement of teachers of primary
education, students and non-teaching staff in ethical issues mentioned above has clearly indicated that increased
attention should be paid to the issue that only warm-hearted people could educate and produce the same people.
Teachers have accepted that the aforementioned ethical issues exist to a certain extent when researchers have

clarified further about the objectivity of those ethical issues from teachers and have emphasized to take into
account many social and family based factors which were having influence over those problems.
11% of teachers surveyed have been spending 1-2 hours in preparation for their lessons, 37% have spent 3-4
hours, 23% have spent 5-6 hours and 28% spend more than 7 hours on weekdays when they have been surveyed on
how much time they spend in fullfilling certain type of activities, inlcuding preparatory work for lessons. 11.8% of
teachers have been teaching payment based tutorial lessons but when learning achievement of teachers who have
been teaching fee based tutorials it was 54.4% of the average percentage of their performance scores. This fact
allows us to make a conclusion that only a few number of teachers are involved in teaching of payment based
tutorial lessons and learning achievement of their students have been higher in comparison to students of other
teachers. Also 95% of all teachers surveyed have spent on average more than 1 hour during each working day a
week doing their household chores but learning achievement has not been dependent much from the number of
hours teachers have spent doing their household chores. 12.4% of teachers have been doing other jobs to
complement their income.
Over 60% of teachers have been engaged in team work and cooperation when teachers were surveyed on how
frequently and how many hours they have been working together on a daily basis and per week on tasks on
teaching of particular concept or theme, preparation of teaching materials, peer observation of teacher lessons and
exchange of experiences etc. Learning achievements of students whose teachers have been involved in cooperation
with one another was higher in comparison to learning achievement of those teachers who have not been engaged
in cooperation hence proving how cooperation among teachers has been more fruitful and effective. However,
30.3% of teachers have responded that they allow other teachers to attend and observe their classes, but it did not
have direct positive impact over learning achievement of their students.
Figure No. 42. Learning Achievement Associated with Cooperation and Team work of Teachers on Concrete
Issues
That has shown that exchange of experiences among teachers themselves has significant impact over
improvement of learning achievement of their students.
3.3 OTHER FACTORS HAVING IMPACT ON MATHEMATICS AND READING
Results of primary education assessment carried out on assessment of mathematics and reading of students
have clearly shown that this has been an effective and yet an important study.
Factors which have been having impact over learning achievement of students were mentioned in detail in the
previous chapter, but in this chapter we have focused on other factors which have been affecting learning
achievement but were not mentioned in previous chapters.
Students themselves have answered that 31.8% have succeeded in mathematics and acquired with A, and
44.3% got B, 16.8% attained C level, and 5.8% received D and 1.3% with F respectively when they were surveyed
what was their performance in mathematics. Moreover, when learning achievements were compared those students

who have assessed themselves as having good performance results in mathematics have shown similarly good
results in testing of their reading as well.
Figure No. 43. Self assessment of Students of their Mathematics Performance Compared with learning
achievement in Mathematics and Reading
Following the results have been obtained when self assessments of students in Mongolian language subject
have been compared with their performance results.
Figure No. 44. Self Assessment of Students of their Performance in Mongolian Language Compared with
Their Learning Achievement in Mathematics and Reading
These results have indicated that teachers of primary education tend to assess and evaluate their students by
comparing students among themselves and not against the standard provision of knowledge and skills.
71.5% of students have possessed textbooks purchased in mathematics and reading when they were surveyed
about the supply of textbooks in mathematics and reading skill development classes. However, 7% of students
surveyed did not acquire textbook in mathematics and 9% did not acquire textbooks in reading .

Figure No. 45. Availability of Textbooks in Mathematics and Reading among Students
When an issue of how learning achievements were associated with the supply of textbook has been taken
into consideration it has clearly shown that the average performance of students with textbooks in mathematics
received 483 scores whereas students with no textbooks in mathematics have shown learning achievement of 460
scores and similarly the performance of students with textbooks in reading was 475 and a score of 464 for ones
who had no textbooks in reading. Learning achievement of students with new textbooks in mathematics and
reading purchased and possessed by them was on average 520 scores when an issue of whether learning
achievement is associated with conditions of the availability of textbooks among students such as whether they
have purchased and possess new books, whether textbooks are used by one student or shared among many, whether
it is used regularly or has to be returned on a certain date, etc. So results have indicated that learning achievement
of students has been dependent upon the possession of own textbooks by students and having new textbooks has
positive impacts on learning achievement of students in their respective subjects.
99.2% of students have assessed their teachers as good in mathematics and 86.3% have assessed their
Mongolian language teachers as good when they were asked whether they would agree with good teaching of their
subjects by Mongolian and mathematics teachers. 96.9% of students have expressed that knowledge gained through
mathematics lesson will be of use further in their study whereas 87% have considered that knowledge obtained
through Mongolian language subject will be of use in their further studies. Learning achievement of students who
have assessed teaching of their mathematics teachers as not good was 511 scores in mathematics, and 505 in
reading, and learning achievement of students who have assessed their teachers as good in Mongolian language
was 514 in mathematics and 509 in reading. Learning achievement of those students who have believed that
knowledge gained in mathematics will be used in the future has achieved 514 scores in mathematics and 509 in
reading. On the other hand, learning achievement of those students who have believed that knowledge gained in
Mongolian language will be used in their further study have achieved 516 scores in mathematics and 512 in
reading. The aforementioned facts have indicated that most students believe that the quality of teaching by their
teachers has been good and knowledge acquired through mathematics and reading will be useful further in their
studies. Learning achievement of students in mathematics who have believed that mathematical knowledge would
be of importance in their further studies was among the highest performances in mathematics.
Also students have answered that 70.2% of math teachers treat them with respect, 27.7% of teachers
occasionally treat their students with respect, 1.9% have no respect for them at all and students also responded that
67.5% of Mongolian language teachers always treat them with respect, 29% respect them occasionally, and 2.6%
do not treat them respectfully at all when students were surveyed about their respect towards their teachers and vice

versa about teachers respecting them. Learning achievements of students were strongly associated with the respect
of their teachers. Therefore, teachers should consistently treat their students as a party or subject who deserves their
full respect and acquire communicative skills for better interaction with their students so that it would both be
pleasant and satisfying for students but most importantly, it creates more possibilities for higher learning
achievement of their students.
66.1% of students have responded that mathematics has been easy for them to understand whereas 67.1%
consider that Mongolian language has been an easy subject. Learning achievement of students who have considered
that mathematics and Mongolian language were easy subjects for them have shown higher performance results in
their tests in comparison to the performance results of students who have considered those subjects and not easy
from time to time and moreover, these students who have considered these subjects as easy were students who have
been doing good in their studies and who have better basic knowledge and good learning skills which have made
easy for them to study.
Figure No. 46. Learning Achievement of Students Associated with Students Perception of Mathematics and
Mongolian Language as Easy Subjects
Poor understanding of a subject or lack of understanding of the subject matter by a student at all from the
very beginning of the subject teaching have been inflicting a lot of pressure over a child’s psychology. Because of
these circumstances it is most likely that they cause shortcomings to occur in their education as falling behind the
rest of the students in class, and becoming introverted and more susceptible to being bullied by others or to copy
and imitate others. Hence, children have replied that the following issues have been confronted by them a lot when
some of the issues within this national evaluation have been considered as whether they feel ashamed from their
classmates and friends because of not understanding mathematics, whether they have been bullied by their peers or
get scolded by their family members.
Table No. 35. Learning Achievement Associated with Students Feeling Ashamed from Others, Bullied by
Others and Scolded by Adults Because of Lack of Understanding of Subjects
Mathematics Reading
Always Sometimes Never Always Sometimes Never
I feel ashamed from my

classmates and friends because of 456 496 542 446 496 534
not understanding in classes;

I get bullied by my peers because

of my poor study and 442 463 534 433 455 532
performance in class;
I get scolded by my family

because of lack of understanding 448 493 543 436 494 533
of lessons that are taught;
I feel ashamed from my

classmates and friends because of 450 490 536 440 484 534
not understanding of classes;
I get bullied by my peers because

of poor study and performance in 437 457 535 424 447 531
classes;
I get scolded by my family

members because of lack of 442 494 538 431 489 534
understanding of lessons;
National assessment have shown that all people who have been working in the educational system should
pay attention towards the elimination of ill practices from happening such as students being scolded because of
poor performance or not being able to understand the subject matter, and being bullied by peers or feel ashamed by
others. Since learning achievement of students who regularly feel ashamed of not being able to understand or been
scolded by their family or bullied by their peers because of poor study have shown very unsatisfactory test
performance which could be related with psychological pressure that children have to be faced with because of
issues caused by poor achievement. Poor understanding could become de-motivated to attend classes and learn
during normal or regular school days. Also, this could be related to poor level of family living standards, or
communication and misunderstanding existing between students and teachers, or poor internal atmosphere built
among classmates. All aforementioned problems have been having strong negative impact over learning
achievement of students.
Students who have been scolded by teachers because of poor understanding have performed
unsatisfactorily in Mongolian language and mathematics related to the aforementioned problems and issues.
Figure No. 47. Learning Achievement Associated with Students Who have been Scolded by Teachers
because of Poor Understanding

The most number of additional questions are being asked by students in mathematics as it has been
revealed from an analysis of how well teachers have been explaining to students about items which were not
understood during their lessons.
Figure No. 48. Learning Achievement Associated with the Teachers Explanation of Items that Were Not
Understood by Students during their Lessons
Based on the above facts a conclusion could be made that students who have been lagging behind their
peers and studying poorly have been genuinely interested in asking additional questions from their teachers to
understand their subject content. Learning achievement of students have been affected positively if teachers have
been providing students with additional explanations on items and content which have not been picked up by them
during lessons with genuine commitment and desire.
An analysis has been made on the responses students have provided to questions surveyed on issues related
with homework in mathematics and Mongolian language including issues whether they have been able to do their
homework on their own, whether home work has been difficult, who they get assistance from, whether home tasks
are checked by teachers, and whether calculator is allowed to be used in mathematics.
78.2% of teachers replied that home work is given almost after all lessons, and 8.4% responded that for
homework is given for half of all lessons and 13.4% have said that their students are given homework on some
parts of lesson content when teachers have been surveyed with questions of how often they are given homework
and for how much time teachers expect for their students to complete their homework. Also teachers have the
following time estimations needed for completion of homework given to their students: 45.8% target 5-30 minutes,
42.4% estimate for homework to be completed within 31-60 minutes, 7.1% between 61-90 minutes, 3.4% for 91-
120 minutes, 0.7% for less than 15 minutes, and 0.4% for more than 120 minutes. The most optimal homework
have been homework that would require less than an hour when timing has been associated with learning
achievement.

Figure No. 49. Learning Achievement Associated with Students Home Work Items
In fact, 50% of students have replied that it has not been difficult to do their home work in Mongolian
language on their own and 44% have considered that doing their homework on their own in mathematics have not
been difficult. 33% of students always receive support and assistance from their friends and family members in
doing their homework, 41% get occasional assistance, and 26% have not been receiving assistance at all. 12% of
students have said that they use calculator always during their math classes, 6.6% use it occasionally and 81.5% do
not use it at all when students were surveyed whether they are allowed to use calculator during math classes. 10.4%
of students have always copied their homework from others, 12.4% copy sometimes and 77.2% have never copied
homework from others. Also 66% of students have replied that their homework is always checked by teachers,
27.3% have said teachers sometimes check homework, and 6.7% have said that their teachers never check their
homework. Learning achievement of both groups of students who have responded that doing homework has been
difficult to do on their own and who have said it has always been difficult to do their homework were both lower
than of learning achievement of students who have said that doing homework in both mathematics and Mongolian
language has not been difficult for them. Learning achievement of students whose teachers have been checking
their homework always was high, whereas the learning achievements of students whose teachers have been
checking their homework sometimes or never have decreased. These facts indicate that learning achievement could
most likely be enhanced and positively affected if teachers give their students homework in the amount to be

completed within few hours or 1-2 hours and are engaged in regular checking. Figure No.50 shown below indicates
that learning achievement is affected negatively if primary school students are always allowed to use calculator
during their math lessons. In addition, parent representatives have been surveyed with the question of who provides
their children with assistance and support in doing homework and the results have been compared with their
learning achievements.
Figure No. 50. Learning Achievement Associated with the Assistance Students Get in Doing Their
Homework
From these data it can be concluded that learning achievement of students is affected positively if they do
their homework on their own without getting assistance from anyone. Students have been engaged in copying of
their homework from others when they cannot do them on their own and teachers are engaged in their checking.
30-35% of teachers always use teaching materials and equipment in presenting their lessons, 33-43% use it
sometimes and 21.5-36% do not use them at all when the use of teaching materials and training equipment by
teachers have been surveyed from students.
Figure No. 51. Learning Achievement Associated with the Use of Teaching Materials and Training
Equipment by Teachers
Uses of teaching materials have had more positive impact over learning achievement of students in
comparison to the use of teaching equipment and technologies when these factors have been associated with
learning achievement. That might be related with improper, not effective and rational use of teaching equipment

and technologies by teachers. Use of teaching materials and teaching equipment sometimes has been associated
with better performance of students in both mathematics and Mongolian language which might indicate that the
constant use of teaching materials and training equipment or no use of them at all could likely be not optimal. The
above facts indicate that occasional and rational use of teaching materials and training equipment during math and
Mongolian language lessons of primary education might have positive impact on learning achievements. Teachers
have answered that they have been using teaching materials, handouts mostly when they were surveyed about what
other training inventories they use themselves and whether these have been having impact over learning
achievement in addition to the use of teaching materials and kits, training equipment and technologies. However,
computers, LCD projectors have almost never been used by them whereas models and objects, things that have
been created by students, and technical equipment are being used occasionally as many teachers have replied. It is
assumed that learning achievement shall be enhanced if those teaching equipment and technologies will be used,
however, the use of objects and models created by students have been more effective if these teaching materials
and training equipment are distinguished in accordance with their importance.
Figure No. 52. Learning Achievement Associated with Use of Teaching Materials by Teachers
Development of students’ self-study skills has been more effective as analysis and results of national
assessment have revealed. It has been shown that it is not important to always use and apply technical equipment
and other inventories or give lots of homework, but rather select methods and approaches which have been suitable
for the age and specifics of students’ psychology to develop their skills were most important in enhancing their
learning achievement.
Teachers have used many methods and approaches in evaluating and assessing their students’ performance,
of which 36.7% of teachers used regularly and 62.2% occasionally, items and tasks that they have developed in
mathematics and similarly, 60.4% of teachers have used regularly and 38.5% occasionally items and tasks that
teachers have developed on their own during Mongolian language lessons. 43.2% of teachers have been using
verbal responses during their math classes always whereas during Mongolian language classes it has been at 50.2%.
Also 42.2% of teachers have been assessing students by their homework, and 45.2% of teachers assess their
students regularly by creative tasks completed by them during math classes whereas 40.7% of Mongolian language
teachers have assessed their students regularly according to their completion of creative tasks. In addition, 69% of
teachers have replied that they use creative tasks to assess their students not always but occasionally.

Table No. 36. Learning Achievement Compared by Teacher Evaluation of Students
Learning achievement in Learning achievement in

mathematics reading comprehensions
Subjec Form
t Always Sometimes Never Always Sometimes Never
With own developed tests 516 502 442 509 497 452
By conventional task developed by 504 511 432 501 503 443

a teacher
Mathematics
By oral responses provided 503 511 527 504 503 503
By home work 499 519 484 500 510 478
By a work performed individually 508 504 347 504 500 379
By creative task 502 510 505 497 503 497
With own developed tests 505 509 442 500 506 452
By a conventional task developed 508 509 517 506 500 419

by teacher
Mongolian language
By given oral answer 510 509 475 507 502 454
By home work 498 521 476 500 510 467
By a work completed 509 508 440 500 505 427

independently
Creative task 498 510 485 499 503 482
The aforementioned facts have shown that teachers have been using a variety of methods and approaches in
assessing and evaluating their students. Moreover, these methods and approaches have had important impacts over
the improvement of learning achievement of students. Assessment of students by performance and fulfillment of
tasks and items developed by teachers themselves, and by self-study or creative work completed by students on a
regular basis have shown that these approaches have been more successful in comparison to use other forms of
assessment as verbal response based assessment, performance of students home tasks or other creative assessment
methods. Independent testing and other examinations have been used in our country but in reality most primary
education teachers have been using widely conventional assessment methods and approaches. However, 66.2% of
teachers have responded that they assess their students by tests developed by them whereas students have replied
that 66.7% of their teachers use tests occasionally and 30% of teachers have used tests regularly. Hence, it indicates
that efforts should be undertaken to upgrade skills and experience of students in doing tests from their current
existing levels and practices.
11.5% of teachers were assessed as very good, 67% as good, 17.5% as satisfactory and 2.5% as poor when
professional teacher skills have been requested to be assessed by school managers for those math and Mongolian
language teachers who have been teaching in classes involved in the national assessment.

Figure No. 53 . Teacher Professional Qualification Associated with Learning Achievement of Students
It could be judged that school administrators have assessed their teachers realistically and objectively since
learning achievement of students who have been taught by those teachers who have been assessed as very good and
good teachers by their managers were higher than the learning achievement of teachers who have been assessed as
satisfactory and poor. This fact also shows that students who have been taught by good and professionally qualified
teachers have more opportunities to achieve better learning results and performance in their learning.
Furthermore, teachers have been requested to assess students who were involved in the national assessment
in respect to their levels of speaking, reading, listening and writing skills using the following three assessment
criteria as satisfactory, not satisfactory and medium level. Students involved in the national assessment were
assessed with the following results: 56% were assessed as satisfactory and 43.5% as in medium level in their
speaking, and 68.6% as satisfactory and 29.8% as in medium level in their reading, and 67% as satisfactory and
32.8% as in medium level in their listening, and 50% were assessed as satisfactory and 49.3% as in medium level
in their writing skills by their teachers. And if these assessment results are compared with outputs observed from
the national assessment than teachers have assessed their students quite higher. It was most likely that teachers have
assessed those students involved in the assessment by comparing them with other students of their schools. In fact,
students who had been assessed as not satisfactory in their speaking and listening skills have performed better in
national assessment tests in comparison to those students who had been assessed as satisfactory in the same skills
by their teachers. It also could indicate that their assessment methodology has been not realistic and objective. On
the other hand, it is more likely for primary education teachers to assess their students a bit higher since assessment
had been done by teachers themselves.

CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY AND APPROACHES OF THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT
4.1 SAMPLING
Two core objectives of the READ Language and Mathematics Assessment were a) to report on achievement
for urban and rural students, and b) Mongolian-language and Kazakh-language students. Another requirement was
to follow, as closely as possible, TIMSS 2007 sampling procedures since the EEC had experience with such
procedures. The Mongolian TIMSS 2007 sample design used private-public schools as the stratification variable.
To address the reporting requirements, two additional strata of school location and school language instruction
were added. Schools were sampled with probability proportional to size from each stratum and then intact classes
were sampled from selected schools.
Sample designs such as that used in the READ Language and Mathematics Assessment typically allocate the
number of schools to be selected from each stratum using one of two methods. First, the number of schools to be
sampled from each stratum may be allocated according to the student population in that stratum. For example, if
the percent of students in the Mongolian-language schools was 95 percent, then the 95 percent of the sampled
schools should come from Mongolian-language schools. Second, the number of schools to be selected from each
stratum is based upon reporting requirements. Having an equal number of schools in each stratum will result in
approximately equal sampling precision for each stratum, regardless of the stratum size. The READ Language and
Mathematics Assessment sample design represents a compromise between these two sampling approaches while
favoring the latter approach. Thus, Kazakh language schools are over-sampled as are rural schools. Schools were
sampled with probability proportional to size within each stratum.19
The READ Language and Mathematics Assessment used a two-stage stratified cluster sample design.
Following TIMSS, the sampling precision for the national estimate of language and mathematics achievement was
set at the same precision as would result from a simple random sample of 400 students. Assuming that students
within schools are somewhat similar to each other but statistically different from students in other schools, the
target school sample was to be at least 150 schools and approximately 4500 students. The need to over-sample
small, rural schools and the desire to sample intact classes increased this sample size slightly. All Kazakh schools
were located in rural areas and were sampled. This represents an over-sampling of Kazakh schools and students
and thus sample weights much be used in any analyses involving Kazakhs.
Sample Weights23
The sample weight calculations follow the three steps in the Mongolian Language and Mathematics Assessment
sample design. First school sample weights are calculated, followed by class weights and finally student weights.
(a) School sample weights

The first stage weight represented the inverse of the first stage selection probability assigned to a sampled
school. The sample design required that school selection probabilities be proportional to the school size (PPS)
school size being enrolment in grade 5. The first stage weight for the ith school was thus defined as:
M
BWsci 
n  mi
23
This sampling strategy was described in my visit workshop visit to the EEC and is detailed in the report on that first visit.
where n was the number of sampled schools in the stratum mi was the measure of size for the ith school
and M is the number of students in the stratum.
First stage weights were calculated for all sampled schools and replacement schools that participated. A school-
level participation adjustment was required to compensate for a Kazakh school that was sampled but did not
participate and was not replaced. Two special schools that were sampled were removed from the calculation of this
adjustment. The school-level participation adjustment was calculated separately for each explicit stratum. The
adjustment was calculated as follows:
ns  nr1  nnr
Asc 
ns  nr1
where ns was the number of originally sampled schools that participated, and nr 1 the number of first replacement
schools, that participated, and nnr the number of schools that did not participate. The final first stage weight for the
ith school, corrected for nonparticipating schools, thus became:
Fsci  Asc  BWsci

(b) Class sample weights
The second stage weight represented the inverse of the second stage selection probability assigned to a sampled
classroom. The sampled intact classrooms using equal probability sampling. For the ith school, let Ci be the total
number of classrooms and ci the number of sampled classrooms. Using equal probability sampling, the final second
stage weight assigned to all sampled classrooms in the ith school was
Ci
i
FW  i
cl1
c
(c) Student sample weights
The third stage weight represented the inverse of the third stage selection probability attached to a sampled
student. Since intact classrooms were sampled, then the basic third stage weight for the j th classroom in the i th
school was simply
BWsti ,1j  1.0

The student non-participation adjustment was calculated separately for each participating classroom as follows:
srsi , j  snri , j
Asti , j 
srsi , j
The third and final stage weight for the jth classroom in the ith school thus became
FWsti,1j  Asti, j  BWsti,1j
The numbers used to compute the student adjustment were derived from the actual test administration form and
thus take into account student transfer out of the schools (these students are excluded), students who transferred
into the class or school (these students are included) and also any students who were missing or absent from the
test.

(d) Overall weight
The overall sampling weight was simply the product of the final first stage weight, the final second stage
weight, and the final third stage weight. Since intact classrooms were tested the overall sampling weight was
W i, j  Asci, j  BWsci  FWcli,1j  Asti, j  BWsti,1j

It is important to note that sampling weights vary by school and classroom, but that students within the same
classroom have the same sampling weights.
The overall weight gives an estimate of the total population size and is sometimes called the Total Weight
(totwgt). This weight can be algebraically adjusted back to the sample size. The adjusted weight is called the house
weight (houwgt) and gives the weighted contribution of each assessed student to the sample.
The sample called for students in 169 schools to be tested. Two Ulaan Baatar special schools (identification
numbers 495 and 523) were excluded after sampling. The number of schools sampled in this stratum was adjusted
down to reflect this change. Two Russian language schools (identification numbers 540 and 537) were replaced by
Mongolian language schools (identification numbers 600 and 499). The replacement schools were the next schools
in the ordered-according to size list of schools within the stratum and thus are the first replacement schools. Since
these Russian-language schools were in an urban, private stratum they have effectively been retained in this
stratum.20 One Kazakh school (identification number 35) did not participate, reportedly due to adverse weather
conditions. The adjustment for school weights was used for this school.
Target and Achieved Sample Proportions
The sample was designed to represent reporting-segments of the grade 5 population. As a quality control
check, and also to facilitate communication to stakeholders, this section compares the numbers and proportions of
the sample, unweighted and weighted, to target numbers and proportions. The target numbers and proportions are
obtained from the census data collected by the Ministry of Education at the start of the school year.
The weighted samples are very close to the desired, target numbers. For example, the number of students
in Mongolian-language schools is 43,585 and the weighted sample is 43,434, while the number of students in
Kazakh-language schools is 2484 and the weighted number is 2,182 (Table ). Note that the proportion of Kazakh
students in the sample (15.4%) is effectively adjusted to approximately the correct proportion by the use of sample
weights. Similarly the over sampling of bag students (5.4% of the sample, see Table ) is corrected through the use
of sample weights.
Table No. 37: Numbers and proportion of Mongolian-language and Kazakh-language school students in
weighted and unweighted samples.
Unweighted House Weight Total Weight Target

Mongolian Language 4,020 (84.6) 4,523 (95.2) 43,434 (95.2) 43,585 (94.6)
Kazakh Language 730 (15.4) 227 (4.8) 2,182 (4.8) 2,484 (5.4)
Total 4,750 4,750 45,616 46,067
20
The presence of Russian-language schools was made know sometime after the second sample was drawn. Russian-language schools and
English-language schools should have been excluded from the study since the testing languages were Mongolian and Kazakh.
Table No. 38: Numbers and proportion of students by school location in weighted and unweighted samples

City Students 1,871 (39.4) 1,753 (36.9) 16,836 (36.9) 16,343 (34.5)
Rural Students 2,879 (60.6) 2,997 (63.1) 28,779 (63.1) 29,728 (64.5)
Total 4,750 4,750 45,615 46,067
Table No. 39: Numbers and proportion of students by school location in weighted and unweighted samples
(Capital City, Aimag City, Soum, and Bag)

Capital City 1,871 (39.4) 1,753 (36.9) 16,836 (36.9) 16,408 (35.6)
Aimag City 1,285 (27.1) 1,261 (26.5) 12,106 (26.5) 11,938 (25.9)
Soum 1,330 (28) 1,627 (34.3) 15,627 (34.3) 16,763 (36.4)
Bagh 264 (5.6) 109 (2.3) 1,046 (2.3) 1,023 (2.2)
Total 4,750 4,750 45,615 46,067
Schools from 2 aimags were not involved in the sampling after the second sampling. These aimags students
were with few. The sampling was designed for involving a national scale not only aimags level. Each involved
students in the study they were representing a definite number of students. In according to student’s number of each
schools, their representing were differently. For example: 23 students were participated in the study from
Khairkhan soum of Arkhangai aimag and each students are representing 13, 5 students in nationwide.
Participation Rates
Two Russian language schools were sampled but since the assessments were to be conducted in Mongolian
and Kazakh these schools were appropriately replaced by the next schools in the sampling frame. Thus there was
only one validly sampled school that did not participate. The unweighted school participation rate is 99,4% (166 of
167).
The unweighted student participation rates, for each location, are shown in table. The student participation
rates in all geographical locations were high. The lower participation rate for bagh schools may be partially
explained by the higher sensitivity of the small sample to fluctuations to a few low participation rates.
Table 40: Unweighted participation rates for school locations
Location Number of sampled Number of Unweighted student

schools participating students participation rate
Capital City 59 1,871 94.54
Aimag City 41 1,285 96.03
Soum 50 1,330 92.68
Bagh 16 264 83.28
Weighted School Participation Rates
Two weighted school-level participation rates were computed.
The denominator remains unchanged in both equations and is the weighted estimate of the total enrollment
in the target population. The numerator, however, changes from one equation to the next. Only students from

originally sampled schools were included in the first equation and students from first replacement schools were
added in the second equation. They were as follows:
s s  r1
i
 BW sc FWcli ,j FWsti ,j  BW i
sc FWcli ,j FWsti ,j
sc  s i, j sc  r1 i, j
Rwtd  s  r1 r 2
Rwtd  s  r1 r 2
 FWsci FWcli ,j FWsti ,j  FWsci FWcli ,j FWsti ,j
i, j i, j
sc c
Rwtd = weighted school participation rate for originally-sampled schools only,
sc r1
Rwtd = weighted school participation rate, including sampled and first replacement schools.
where both the numerator and denominator were summations over all responding students and the appropriate
classroom-level and student-level sampling weights were used. Ω and Δ take the value one since no sub sampling
was involved . Note that the basic school-level weight appears in the numerator, whereas the final school-level
weight appears in the denominator.
The denominator remains unchanged in the two equations and is the weighted estimate of the total
enrolment in the target population. The numerator, however, changes from one equation to the next. Only students
from originally sampled schools and from classrooms with at least 50 percent of their students participating in the
study were included in the first equation. Students from first replacement schools were added in the second
equation.
The weighted school participation rates were 98% and 100% (after rounding). The weighted school participation
rates are excellent.
The weighted student participation rate was computed as follows:

sr1
i
 BW sc BWcli ,j BWsti ,j
st i, j
Rwtd  sr1
i
 BW sc BWcli ,j FWsti ,j
i, j
where both the numerator and denominator were summations over all responding students from participating
schools. Note that the basic student level weight appears in the numerator, whereas the final student-level weight
appears in the denominator. Furthermore, the denominator in this formula was the same quantity that appears in the
numerator of the weighted classroom-level participation rate for all participating schools, sampled and replacement.
The weighted student participation rate is 95%. This is excellent.
Weighted Overall Participation Rates
Two weighted overall participation rates were computed. They were as follows:
ovs
Rwtd weighted overall participation rate for originally sampled schools only
ov r1
Rwtd weighted overall participation rate, including sampled and first replacement schools.

Each weighted overall participation rate was defined as the product of the appropriate weighted school participation
rate, weighted classroom participation rate and the weighted student participation rate. They were computed as
follows:
ov  s sc  s cl st
Rwtd  Rwtd Rwtd Rwtd
ov  r1 sc  r1 cl st
Rwtd  Rwtd Rwtd Rwtd
The weighted overall participation rate for originally sampled school is 93%. The weighted overall
participation rate when the replacement schools are included is 95%. Overall, school level and student level
participation rates meet international sampling requirements.
4.2 METHODOLOGY OF THE SURVEY
Twenty five groups went on a 3-15 day mission to organize nationwide research of elementary schools.
One group of researchers planned to go to the provinces. The Education Evaluation Center (EEC), teachers, and
Research Organization members worked together to develop the program.
The research team first attended a seminar on the purpose, direction, and methods of the research. They
also received instruction booklets and other materials, and rehearsed conducting the research in Darkhan City “Od”
Complex School.
After this training, the research began across 19 provinces (Dundgobi and Gobisumber provinces did not
participate in the research), in 166 schools, with 4750 students, 165 school administrations and elementary school
teachers taking part. The instructions given to the research team (teachers trained in the research methods, and the
head of the province’s Elementary Education System) were:
 Get information about how to organize the research, Attend training seminar
 Receive research materials
 Organize and conduct the research at the chosen schools
 Collect research data
 Report information about participants, including their attitude towards the research, and any complaints,
and well as the research method.
 Document the research process, and the debriefing with parents and students, using photographs and video
recording
Throughout the research process, team members worked with school administrators, students, teachers, and
parents, by introducing them to the methods, purpose, and instructions of the research. In the chosen classes, the
head of the province’s Elementary Education System, a representative of the school, and the class teacher went into
the class, and greeted the students and introduced the research to create a healthy environment for the research.
After that, they gave the survey to the students, and 5 minutes of instruction on how to complete the survey. After a
set time, judged to be long enough for the students to give satisfactory answers, the researchers gathered up the
surveys, regardless of the student’s progress, so that the students would not become disruptive.
During the survey students who asked for help with specific questions or answers in the survey were told,
“Sorry, I can’t tell you that, you have to pick the answer you think is right.” Researchers did, however, give
instructions on how to complete the survey. Students were not allowed to leave the room during the survey, except
in special conditions (ie. The student is sick). If a student leaves the room, the researcher records it, collects the

survey before the student leaves, and returns it to him or her when the student comes back. If a student was late for
a research session, they were included in the next session.
After the data was collected, the researchers thanked the students and teachers. Then they met with the
school administrators and parents to answer any questions they had and take complaints about the research.
Questions and complaints were included in a written report.
Finally, the research data and reports were given to the EEC.
4.3 CREATION OF INFORMATION DATABASES, SOFTWARE PROGRAMMS APPLIED
Researchers created a program to enter student’s information, to create a database, and record monitoring.
Tools Used to Create the Program
 Information Database was created using Borland Interbase 6.5 software

 Borland Delphi 6.0 software was used to create a program to track scores and register reports.
Structure
The software consists of 2 parts:
1. Information database – EDUCATIONCENTRE.GDB

2. Programs
a. StudentScoreEntry – This is used to compile students scores
b. StudentInfo – Used to enter students information, comparison of registered scores, and
create reports.
Information database and the program will work as a client-server. The program will have an Ini file that
will instruct you which server to use. The Ini file will appear as follows:
[Database]
Server Address=(Server IP Address)
The information database will be located on the servers in
D:\My Documents\EDUCATIONCENTRE.GDB
“StudentInfo” is only accessible by an account with supervisor privileges.
“StudentScoreEntry” is only accessible by authorized StudentScoreEntry team members. Each member

will have his or her own entry ID.

Figure No. 54. Structure of Information Database
Tables in Information Database are stores under the following 2 categories
1. Main Registration
a. REG_CLASS – Registration of school and classes
b. REG_STUDENT – Student registration
c. REG_SCORE – Open registration of students’ score
d. REG_SCORE_ALL – Complete registration of the students’ score
e. STUDENTS_RELATED – Students who were involved in the study
f. STUDENTS_NOT_RELATED – Absent (sick, excused, unexcused) students]
2. Supplementary Information
a. LU_USER_ACCOUNT – Program entry rights information
b. LU_SCORE_TYPE – Open scoring code
c. LU_TASK—Questionnaire items
d. LU_TASK_ITEM—Multiple choice answers
Program Functioning
The program will have 3 steps

1. “StudentInfo” will be used to register information of schools and students.

2. “StudentScoreEntry” will be used to register students’ score using the following instructions
a. Open ended responses /Open ended/
i. Students in the 20th percentile
ii. All students /100th percentile/
b. Multiple Choice answers /Hundred percent/
i. 100 percent
ii. 20 percent
1. Teachers
2. EEC team
3. Use “StudentInfo” to do comparisons using the following instructions:
a. Open ended question 100 percent with 20 percent
b. Multiple choice 100 percent with EEC and Teachers registered 20% score
The greater the percent of the comparison, the more correct the student’s scoring registration is.
Explanations about “StudentScoreEntry” software.
When you start the program, there will be a log in window. Each user will be given an individual log in ID.
After logging in, there will be a main menu window on the right side of the computer screen
Score registration (open) instructions
This window is for entering the student’s 100 or 20 percent scoring information for open ended questions.
One user cannot enter both the 100 and 20 percent information. If one user enters the 100 percent information,
another user must enter the 20 percent information.

The “Registered” and “question type” field will show the information of registered members. The type of
information you will enter into the program will be there. For this window, “Test1” user will enter the Math score.
In the “School number” field, you must enter the student’s school number. You must then choose score
registration type from the “Students” field. Next, click the “Choose” button. Now the results will be displayed in
the window. Now you can enter the test scores for the students you have selected.
Registration of students score/Total
You will enter all of the student’s information in this window.
First enter the school number, then choose the question type, and click the “choose” button. Students’
information will then be displayed on the left side of the window. If scoring information has been entered, it will be
displayed on the right side of the window. If no scoring information has been entered, you can enter it now, and
click the “enter score” button.
This window shows complete scoring information.
If 100% of a student’s information is entered, his or her name will be highlighted in blue.
Student’s score registration (20%)
In this window, you will enter the multiple choice information for 20th percentile of the teachers, and EEC.
One member of the team cannot enter the information for both groups. The steps for entering the 20th percentile
score are the same as the 100th percentile.

Settings Window
Window to look for and correct meaning of questions and answers
“StudentInfo” Program Explanation
When you start the program, the main window will appear on the left side of your screen.
Student’s information registration window

To view this window, click “register” on the main window
Instructions:
1. Fill in the school and class information at the top of the window
2. Click “Save” button to save.
3. Import students information from a 5 column excels spreadsheet.
4. Click on the “Import” button. The spreadsheet should look like the following example. If the spreadsheet is
formatted incorrectly, there will be an error.
Amarmend Bat-Erdene 1996/3 AK96032815 2

Batdelger Batmagnai 1997/3 AK97030717 2
Bayanmunkh Byambasuren 1996/7 AK96072001 1
Bayanmunkh Byambadorj 1996/7 AK96072001 2
a. The first column is the Surname

b. 2nd column is the given name
c. 3rd column is year and month the student was born
d. 4th registration number
e. 5th gender
5. After importing the information, the student ID, Monitor number, and survey number will be displayed.
6. You will be able to change, fix, or add information later.
7. If you hit the “Print” button, a print preview will be displayed, and will print when you click the printer
icon.

Student Information List
To get to this window, you click the “List” button on the main window.
Instructions:
1. If you click the “Choose” button without entering any information, you will see the school and class
information. After you enter information into the input fields and click “Choose” again, the information
you chose will be displayed.
2. If you choose any options from the drop down boxes and click “more,” that information will be displayed.
Open ended question code checking window
To get to this window, click the “Check Score” button on the main window. This window will show the results of
the comparison of the 20% and 100% students for open ended questions.

There are 2 methods of comparison
1. Use all the digits of the score – use complete score for the comparison
2. Use only the first digit of the score – Compare only raw scores.
Check “show differences,” and click the “Choose” button. A table will be displayed with the difference highlighted
in yellow.
Information about who entered the data and the accuracy of the scoring will be displayed at the bottom of the
window (The higher the percentage, the more accurate the scoring).
Multiple choice code checking window
To reach this window, click “Repair Check Score” button on the main window. Teachers or EEC teams 20% and
100% scores will be compared here, and displayed the same way as in the “Open ended question code checking
window.”

If you click the “Unregistered Schools List” button, the following window will appear:
Repair Window
This window will display the names of the students who were absent during the testing.
4.4 TRAINING SEMINARS AND WORKSHOPS
In October, 2006, the main researchers created several teams of research assistants, including 9 math
teams, 9 literacy teams, 4 testing teams, 4 IT teams, 4 leader teams, and 8 helper teams. During the same month, a
seminar was organized for the teams. In the seminar, the teams learned about the purpose of the research, national
and international education research methods, the methods of scoring, and shared their research experience, and
discussed potential problems that can occur during the research process.
In March, 2007, the members of the testing team were chosen. In April, the pilot tests were conducted.
April, 2008, a study organization seminar was held, and preparations for the main project were completed.
In February, April, and October of 2008, seminars were held to prepare specialists for the evaluation of
elementary education systems. The seminar was for City and Province School education managers and the heads of

the Elementary Education system, and taught them how to organize the study, new scoring methods, how to do
diagnostic scoring, and to conduct the same seminar in their own Provinces.
In May, 2008 the teachers who would score the open ended questions were chosen, and seminars were
organized for those teachers. The open ended instruction book was created during this seminar, to avoid the
problems of non-standardized scoring of the open ended questions.
4.5 QUALITY CONTROL/MONITORING
The first step of the quality control process was the creation of a quality control team, which worked on
each step of the test creation. They also conducted research to choose the most appropriate questions for the
surveys to be included in a question database, and examined the pilot research that had already been conducted,
retesting. They analyzed and improved the test quality. They took part in the main survey process, and made
instructions for scoring the tests, creating the database, and making reports. They reexamined teachers scoring for
accuracy and fairness.
Researchers believe that general requirements were followed for the creation of the test creation process.
The test included, multiple choice, fill in the blank, comparison, and open ended type questions for mathematics,
Mongolian language, and literature following the Bloom and Solo taxonomy, and the TIMMS, PIRLS, and PISA
tests. After the test was created, it was checked for quality and time for completion. If any test items did not meet
quality standards, they were removed. The tests for students, parents, foster parents, Home Room advisors,
teachers, and school administrators were discussed with national and international advisors. City and Province
teachers who took part in the test, school administrators, and the heads of the Province Elementary Education
systems were consulted. Each of these steps was conducted by members of the quality control team.
After the data collection was completed, researchers prepared the open ended question scoring teachers,
and held a seminar and created the open ended question scoring instruction book to avoid the problems of non-
standardized scoring. Each teacher checked 20% of another teacher’s scoring, and if any differences occurred, the
team leader examined the entire test. The quality control team also worked on score coding, entered data into the
database, and each member checked 20% of another member’s data entry.
Researchers created a program that will contain information of the students that took part in the study. The
program works in the following way:
1. StudentScoreEntry – This part is used to record students score

2. StudentInfo – This part is used to record student information, and to compare score information.
This system will help to avoid any problems that may occur with the database.
Some students chosen for the survey, and who’s data had been entered into the system were absent during
the survey. They were removed from the database, and replaced by another student, thus keeping all of the data
accurate. After creating the database, researchers checked for mistakes as a final step before data analysis.
The RASH ConQuest program was used for test quality. A recommendation report was made for teachers
and parents, following scientific guidelines, while also being easily understood by a layman.

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND READING
The Nationwide Math and Literacy Education Level research team make the following conclusions about
the education level.
Foreign countries are using standard requirements (benchmarks). 4 levels of benchmarks, and ability level
measurements, were created based on the results of this research. The unique aspect of this research is that it
focused on the problems that will need to be addressed in the future.
What is the level of success of math and literature education?
 The average math ability test score was 45.4% and literature was 48%. This shows that the student’s ability
is substandard.
 Students were less successful with open ended questions than multiple choice questions.
 Students who scored highly on the math test, also scored highly on the literature test. This shows that math
and literature skills are connected. These abilities are positively correlated to general success in other
subjects.
 Math test results show that geometry and addition levels are higher than probability and statistics.
Literature test results show that writing levels are below reading and listening levels.
 Kazak language schools’ average test score was lower than that of Mongolian language schools.
 Mongolian test scores are below the international average.
 Urban students scored 13% higher in math, and 10% higher in literature than rural students, and 24%
higher in math and 20% higher in literature than students in county subunits (very small, undeveloped
towns). This shows urban students have higher math and literature levels than urban students.
Researchers found the following influences on student’s math and literature ability based on test results, and input
from administrators, teachers, and parents.
5.2 WHAT FACTORS INFLUENCE LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT?
As the result of study the factors, which influenced the skill of mathematics and reading, including
questionnaires from representatives from the school administrators people, methodologists from Aimag in charge
of primary education, parents and guardians and learning achievement were studied and following factors were
identified.
A. Influence of School Environment
 Classes with a higher than average number of students (35), performed lower than classes with
fewer students.
 Students who sit in pairs scored higher than students who sat alone or in groups greater than 2.
This result was consistent in both urban and rural areas
 Students with a better classroom environment, measured by heating, furnishing, and cleanliness,
scored higher than other students.
 Chairs and desks that were the wrong size for students had a negative influence on test
performance.
 Students in specialized schools scored higher than those in regular schools.
 Students in schools with better classrooms, gymnasiums, and music classes scored higher than
students in other schools.
 Industrial training and other training programs take a small amount of the income for public
schools.
B. Influence of Extracurricular Activities and Environment
 Students who receive training before school (ie. Preschool) are more successful.
 Students with a longer commute scored lower than students who lived closer to the school.
 Students who live in dormitories or with foster families scored lower than average.
 Students with better home environments (television, electronics, etc…) were more successful. And
students in stable families scored higher then families in dysfunctional families.
 Students with a home library are more successful.
 The higher the parents’ education level, the more successful the students are.
 Students from families with substandard income scored lower than average.
 Students’ level of success was not significantly influenced by number of family members, number
of employed family members, or number of people living in their household.
 Urban parents pay more attention to their children than rural parents.
 Students’ level of hunger at home and in school is correlated with level of success. This result
implies that lunch programs should be continued and improved. All levels of respondents supported
this program.
 One influence on rural students lack of success is the amount of time spent doing chores at home.
C. Individual differences in students
 Gender did not influence test results.

 Students attending extracurricular classes scored higher on the tests. This finding implies that
below average students should attend extracurricular classes.
 Basic knowledge and desire to learn has a direct influence on student’s success.
 Students who do not understand the lessons during class become depressed and discouraged. This
leads to a lower desire to learn, and a higher dropout rate.
 Homework: giving creative work based on student’s ability and giving feedback on their
performance can have a positive influence on students’ academic success.
 5.8% of the students have some kind of disability, mostly vision problems. Students with vision,
listening and bodily disabilities can be placed with regular students, but the success of mentally
disabled students placed with regular students needs to be researched by professionals.
 4.3% of the students have some kind of disease; Mostly ear, nose, and throat diseases.
 1.7% of the students have been absent from school for extended periods before. The reasons can
be, low desire to learn, poor psychological environment, sickness, or moving. Students who have been
absent from school for extended periods ad less successful than average.
 Students who began school at age 6 scored higher than those who began school at
age 7 or 8.
 Students who do homework individually have higher levels of success.
D. Teacher Influence

 Test results showed that math and literature classes should be taught by professional teachers.
 Teachers’ morality, responsibility, and discipline, and students’ upbringing and background will
influence academic success.
 Academic success is also dependant on the level of the teachers’ class preparation.
 Teachers who are members of teaching teams that help each other prepare for classes, take part in
each other’s classes, and discuss their work have more academically successful students.
 Teachers’ respect of the students positively influences academic success. Teachers who received
relational training, and think of students as one side of the relationship, have more academically
successful students.
 At an Elementary Education level, it is better to use teaching materials developed by the teacher
and students, than to use computer s or LCD projectors.
 Teachers who take part in continuing education have more successful students.
 Students of teachers with long term, and those with short term teaching experience show no
significant difference in test scores.
 Teachers’ participation in seminars shows no significant result on students’ scores.
 Oppression and negative psychological pressure from teachers is more common in rural areas.
E. Miscellaneous
 Teachers want to have teacher development centers at their school, and to take part in seminars and
training approximately once every 5 years. Most teachers want a salary system that rewards good
performance.
 The study shows that teachers need training in the use of technology in education, teaching
methods, psychology, student development, and assessment.
 Teachers rate their students higher than test scores indicate.
 Parents and foster parents are satisfied with teachers’ performance.
 The study shows that school administrators more accurately report teachers’ performance than in
previous years.
 Elementary school teachers need more computer training.
 The survey shows that school administrators and teachers both want a national curriculum (same
books used everywhere).
 Teachers report that greater supplies of computers and technology will improve academic
performance.
 The positive impact administrators can have on students’ academic success comes from the
attention they pay to teacher training.
 Teaching methods and effectiveness in urban areas is better than in rural areas.
 The study has shown that a favorable environment for study has been created more successfully in
urban schools than in rural schools.
 Private school students score higher than public school students because there are fewer students in
the class, teachers with a higher level of education, and a better learning environment.
5.3 HOW LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT CAN BE IMPROVED?
Based on findings and results of the national assessment a following proposal for some necessary yet
concrete measures to be undertaken for implementation is being proposed with the overall purpose of enhancing
learning achievement and outcomes.

Table No. 41. Proposals or Directions of Work to be done
Whom Issues to tackle Direction of the work to be done

Standard, textbooks of primary education:  To develop and adopt for standards and
Policy redevelop the standards
makers To undertake measures in connection with the content  To develop and adopt standards of
difficulty of primary education standards, unclear and not learning environment;
adequate terms and terminologies used; and lack of  Revision of evaluation standards and
environmental standards; procedures of primary education, and
their enhancement;
 To develop National Program of
Education;
 To have textbooks for every children
 Teacher preparation process;
 To ensure for every student to possess

Issues to be tackled include poor quality of textbooks of textbooks and develop one high quality
primary education, and finalization of whether optional textbooks written in accordance
textbooks are rational; with the standards
Teacher preparation activities  Enroll and choose students willing to
Improving graduator’s quality of pedagogical universities. teach
 To support for the pedagogical
universities from government by policy.
 Improving the teaching personnel of

teacher training institutions and
improvement of training programs and
curriculums, particularly, enhancing
content of didactic programs on
teaching, thinking and research;
 Teacher development centers
established in each school and training
seminars and workshops are organized
Teacher activities effectively;
Enhancing teaching skills of primary education teachers,  Comprehensive reforming of the
implement capacity building and development of teachers, national teacher in-service training
establishment of student’s workload comprehensively, equip system;
teachers with knowledge and skills and subsequently  To establish rationally teacher workload
encourage them to give to students as their home work and improve their team working skills;
creative tasks that will match age and psychological  Integrated tackling of social issues of a
development of their students;
teacher;
 Establishment of students workload in
accordance with students age and
psychological specifics;
 To increase computer using of teachers
 To study in international item writing
methods
 To have tested and piloted test fund for
every teacher and schools
 To introduce the new technology and
effective methods in the study
 To work skill required items by students
permanently
Class size  To maintain class size not larger than 35

Schools and To abolish large classes which impacts negatively workload, students per class (to establish a
teachers health and quality of teaching and learning for teachers and vacancy of an assistant teacher per
students; grade 1)
 Improve interior environment, health
and sanitation conditions and yet
comfortable of classrooms and facilities;
Urban and rural location:  To enhance environment and conditions
To diminish difference in learning achievement between of rural schools;

urban and rural students;  To regulate migration and movement of

population;
 To undertake measures with the aim to
improve quality of teaching personnel
of rural schools;
Co-operation:  To enhance comprehensively related
To enhance link and networking between schools, teachers regulations and procedures;
and parents;  To make school activities more
transparent for parents and enhance
their involvement and accountabilities;
To link primary education with pre-school education;  To increase number of children to be
To change low coverage of pre-school education and covered by kindergartens;
enhance insufficient quality of pre-school education  To enhance quality and accessibility of
activities; pre-school education services;
 To enhance link and integration of pres-
school and secondary educations;
To enhance school library fund  To enhance the school library for the
To pay attention to the books for kids a few and no students
enhancement for library fund  To improve the textbook’s quality and
distribution
To provide by textbooks and instruments
To pay attention to their homework and for reason of  To provide by textbooks and
backwardness connect with no textbook instruments
 To provide by uniform
Students and To involve in training along the interest  To involve in training center and clubs
parents To pay attention to involving in training, spending their free for their children
time a properly
To have books at their home  To enhance by books and texts suitable
To pay attention to the learning achievement of students to their interests
have books are higher than no books
Mathematics and reading comprehension:  To train students to undertake tests;

To carry out analysis and assessment of insufficient quality  To pay special attention for students to
of mathematics and reading comprehension and enhance acquire skills to solve and comprehend
learning achievement and its quality; problems; comprehend and write texts;
 To teach students to understand and
work with data in figures, diagrams and
tables;
Remarks: Duration period or timeframe in this table has been identified as short, mid and long terms. Short term implies to priority and
urgent issues to be addressed, mid-term refers to actions to be undertaken in compulsory manner, and long-term refers to a measures that
have to be implemented on regular and yet to be undertaken in compulsory manner.
5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations, based on research findings, are provided to school administration,
parents, and researchers, to enhance the quality of elementary education.
To Teachers:
Care for Your Students from the Bottom of Your Heart: You need to learn about the individual
background of your students and develop a flexible relationship with them, especially with the less successful
students. You can talk to the students privately, developing trust, talk to their parents, and give them creative work
at their own developmental level. This will improve the student’s desire to learn.
Continual Development: Teachers should improve their foreign language and technological abilities, and
use them as part of the teaching process, because this is a century of knowledge and information.

Every Teacher is a Researcher: Analyzing your own teaching quality, student’s educational
development, and students’ level of academic success, is the basis for effective work. That is why teachers should
learn and become skilled with research methods.
Every Teacher Should Use Information Technology (IT) in Their Training and Research: Without
improving your knowledge of IT, there is no way you can use it to enhance the quality of the education system.
Create an Opportunity to Work With Every Individual Student: You can improve the individual
relationship with students through assigning teamwork, individual tutoring, and using parents as assistants.
Have a Passion for Your Work: The root of success is to have a passion for what you do.
Work Together With Parents: It is important to work with students’ parents to encourage the students’
independent learning and success.
Every Teacher Should Be Part of A Team: Creating a project, enhancing teaching methods, learning
from other teachers, and solving problems is most effectively managed as a team.
Make Quality Preparations For Class: Be aware that how well you are prepared for class has a direct
impact on your students’ level of success.
Use Assessment Effectively: The most effective measure of your performance is the results of your
students’ tests. That is why it is important that teachers be skilled at creating tests, interpreting results, and also to
teach your students test taking skills.
Every Teacher Should Maintain a Test Question Bank: Having a standardized collection of test
questions, organized by school, department, and class, and continually updating these questions is very important.
For School Administrators:
Enhance Teacher Ethics and Accountability: Teachers’ ethics and level of accountability have a direct
impact on the quality of teaching in a school. This is why administrators should pay attention to modern leadership
skills, quality education service, teachers’ ethics, and work accountability.
Create A Favorable Learning Environment: Having a favorable environment is an effective way of

improving students’ academic performance. This is why you should focus your resources on creating a positive
learning environment.
Consistent and Regular Teacher Development: A well developed teacher is the main tool of improving
the education system. This is why it is important to have a teacher development center at each school, and to
consistently send teachers to training seminars.
Pay Attention to Teachers’ Social Issues: remember a salary system that rewards positive performance
results in a higher retention rate of qualified, effective teachers. An industry program at the school can be used to
supplement your budget, giving you extra funds to reward the teachers with money and benefits.
Cooperate With Parents and Stakeholders: Working with, and listening to, parents and stakeholders can
greatly improve the quality of education at your school.
Encourage Students’ Socialization, Interests, and Talents: By organizing sport and art competitions,
professional training, and extra activities at school, you encourage students’ socialization and talents.

Reach Out To Each of Your Students: Having a real relationship with your students can help you to have
better success as an administrator, and to have a successful school. Encourage individual learning in students will
increase the effectiveness of your school.
For Parents:
Have Consistent Contact Between School and Parents: The level of your child’s knowledge, ability, and
development depends not only on your family, but also on the school, classmates, and teachers. So it is important to
be in contact with the schools.
Supply Educational Materials To your Child: Study results showed that students who have their own
books, and have a home library, have a higher level of academic success. It is also important to provide your child
with other educational materials, and a uniform.
Create A Warm Environment In Your Home: Having a warm, calm environment in the home, has a
very strong positive influence on your child’s success.
Let Your Child Take Part In Extracurricular Activities, Depending On His or Her Interests:
Students that attend extracurricular activities have higher than average levels of success.
Have A Home Library: One way to improve your child’s academic performance is to have a home library
with useful, quality books. And don’t forget to keep it up to date with new books that your kids like to read.
Influence of Friends: How, and with whom, your child spends his or her free time can have a strong
impact on his or her academic performance.
Ensure That Children Understand The Importance of Learning: During the research process, many
teachers expressed a desire for parents to emphasize the importance of learning, to teach them to know how
important information is.
Talk To Your Children Openly And Frankly On A Regular Basis: One weak side of Mongolian
parenting style is being unable to speak openly with your children. If you speak openly and honestly with your
children when they are young, they will be open and honest with you when they are in high school. Speaking
openly is an important ability. Research results showed that most students do not have open speaking skills. Parents
speaking openly with their children are important for their development and academic success.
Preschool Education: The study showed that students who went to preschool before entering school had
higher levels of academic success.


CHAPTER 6: ANNEXES
6.1 RESEARCH TEAM OF MEMBERS
Project team leader:

Ts. Oyunsaikhan /Director of EEC/
International consultants:
Kelvin D. Gregory /Lecturer of Flinders University, Australia, Doctor/
Cedrick Croft / New Zealand, consultant/
National consultants:
Ts. Unorbayan /Director of SMS of MNUE, prof./
A. Monkhor /Head of Department of Physics and Technology of the MUE, professor/
Director of the NITP (National Information Technology Park) А.Batjargal
Project Organization, Research, Preparation of National Assessment Specialist Seminar

Organization, and Report Team
Ts. Oyunsaikhan /Director of EEC/

Ts. Erdenetsetseg /Senior Specialist, EEC/
М. Boldsaikhan / Specialist, EEC/
D. Binderya / Specialist, EEC/
J. Bileg-Orshikh / Specialist, EEC/
G. Bilegsaikhan /Specialist, EEC/
М. Gantuya / Specialist, EEC/
J. Аltantsetseg / Specialist, EEC/
Ts. Rentsendorj / Specialist, EEC/
J. Ganzorig / Specialist, EEC/
B. Nyamsuren / Specialist, EEC/
I. Enkhnasan / Specialist, EEC/
B. Batzaya / Specialist, EEC/
E. Tuvshinzaya / Specialist, EEC/
L. Ganbat / Specialist, EEC/
D. Оyunsuren /Programmer/
Test Creation Team
D. Erdene /Khan-Uul district, school №32, manager of study/

D. Аltangerel /BZ district, high-school Shine-Mongol, teacher/
S. Bat-Erdene /SB district, school №105, manager of study/
О. Munkh-Chandmani /BZ district, school №111, teacher/
М. Boldsaikhan /Specialist, EEC/
O. Мyagmarsuren /MNUE,teacher/
D. Ganbold /BZ district, school №84, teacher/
O. Tsendsuren /ECAC,methodologist/
D. Аltantsetseg /MECS, specialist /
S. Мunkhjargal /MNUE, teacher/
S. Batmunkh /SIA Chingeltei district, inspector/
D. Khishgee /NUM, School of Economics, lecture/
B. Myagmarsuren / NUM, School of Economics, lecture/

Preparation of National Assessment Specialist Seminar Attendants, and Heads of the Province
Education System
N. Enkhgerel /Arkhangai aimag/

B. Urantsetseg /Bulgan aimag/
B. Saulesh /Bayan-Ulgii aimag/
N. Dolgorsuren /Bayankhongor aimag/
N. Аriuntugs /Dornogovi aimag/
N. Bat-Erdene /Khovd aimag/
N. Sumyagarav /Sukhbaatar aimag/
N. Tserenjav /Govi-Altai aimag/
N. Buyannemekh /Umnugovi aimag/
N. Тumenjargal /Khentii aimag/
Б. Davaamaa /Uvurkhangai aimag/
Ц. Serjmee /Khovsgol aimag/
N. Lkhamragchaa /Zavkhan aimag/
N. Мyagmarsuren /Selenge aimag/
N. Pagva /Uvs aimag/
N. Battsengel /Central aimag/
N. Bumtuya /Dornod aimag/
N. Dashnyam /Оrkhon aimag/
N.Аmgalan /Darkhan-Uul aimag/
N. Enkh-Аmgalan /Govi-Sumber aimag/
Preparation of National Assessment Specialist Seminar Attendants/Researchers (Training Managers)
N. Buyankhuu /Secondary school № I, Arkhangai aimag/

I. Buzmaa /Secondary school, Khotont soum, Arkhangai aimag/
Ch. Erdenechimeg /Secondary school, Bulgan soum, Bulgan aimag/
P. Îyunchimeg /Secondary school, Khutag-Undur soum, Bulgan aimag/
J. Êulaikhan /Primary school, Ulgii soum, Bayan-Ulgii aimag/
H. Riza /High school № 3, Bayannuur soum, Bayan-Ulgii aimag/
D. Naranbileg /Nomuundalai complex school, Bayankhongor aimag/
D. Uranchimeg /Secondary school, Buutsagaan soum, Bayankhongor aimag/
Ts. Îyunchimeg /Secondary school №I, Sainshand, Dornogovi aimag/
S. Àmartsengel /Primary school, Zamin-Uud/
Ya. Nasanbat /Secondary school Progress, Jargalant soum, Khovd aimag/
M. Îtgonbayar /Secondary school, Bulgan soum, Khovd aimag/
Ì. Tuul / Òemuulel complex school, Sukhbaatar aimag/
B.Purevsuren /Secondary school №I, Munkhhaan soum, Sukhbaatar aimag/
Ch.Tsagaantsooj /Secondary school №I, Govi-Altai aimag/
S.Hurtsgerel /Secondary school , Beger soum, Govi-Altai aimag/
Î.Àltantsetseg /Complex school Erdmiin Dalai, Saintsagaan soum, Dundgovi aimag/
T.Ishgen /Secondary school №2, Saintsagaan soum, Dundgovi aimag/
Ts.Îyunsuren /Secondary school №I, Gurvantes soum, Umnugovi aimag/
L.Unur /Secondary school, Bayandalai, Umnugovi aimag/
J.Sukhbaatar /Secondary school №I, Herlen soum, Hentii aimag/
Ch.Hishigtogtokh /Secondary school №I, Umnudelger soum, Hentii aimag/
G.Dulmaa /Secondary school, Sant soum, Ovorhangai aimag/
Sh.Erdenechimeg /Secondary school №I, Uvurhangai aimag/

B.Gumed /Complex school, Delgerhangai soum, Huvsgul aimag/
J.Àltangerel /Secondary school №3, Murun, Huvsgul aimag/
G.Tseendorj /Secondary school, Erdenekhairkhan soum, Zavkhan aimag/
N.Munkhtuya /Complex school Chandmani-Erdene, Erdenekhairkhan soum, Zavkhan aimag/
Sh.Chimedtsogzol /Secondary school №2, Mandal, Selenge aimag/
B.Narangerel /Secondary school №4, Sukhbaatar, Selenge aimag/
G.Bayarmaa /Secondary school, Selenge aimag/
S.Jonomoo /Secondary school №1, Ulaangom, Uvs aimag/
Ch.Tseveen /Complex school Shine-Ireedui, Uvs aimag/
B.Batchimeg /Secondary school, Bayanchandmani soum, Central aimag/
N.Îyunkhuu /Complex school Humuun, Central aimag/
D.Dorjnamjim /Complex school Shine hugjil, Dornod aimag/
Ì.Haraa /Secondary school №12, Dornod aimag/
B.Bolormaa /Complex school Erdenet, Orkhon aimag/
B.Bum-Ayush /Complex school Bayan-Undur, Orkhon aimag/
P.Baigalmaa /Complex school Oyuni-Ireedui, Darkhan-Uul aimag/
D.Byambaa /Secondary school №14, Khongor soum, Darkhan-Uul aimag/
L.Narantuya /Secondary school №1, Govi-sumber aimag/
D.Tserenchimed /Complex school Bolovsrol, Baganuur district/
D.Gankhuyag /Complex school Bolovsrol, Baganuur district/
L.Tsolmon /High school №3, Shiveegovi soum, Govi-sumber aimag/
B.Narantsetseg /Secondary school №1, Selenge aimag/
D.Erdene /Secondary school №32, Khan-Uul district/
S.Bat-Erdene /Secondary school №105/
Ê.Dolgorsuren /Secondary school №39, Chingeltei district/
Ts.Tsolmonbaatar /Secondary school №23, Chingeltei district/
J.Ìunkhzul /Secondary school №114, Khan-Uul district/
B.Chantsaldulam /Secondary school №111, Bayan-Zurkh district/
Ts.Tsastsetseg /Secondary school №50, Chingeltei district/
B.Nyamsuren /Complex school Shavi, Bayan-Zurkh district/
Ch.Îyuntulkhuur /Complex school Buyant-Ukhaa, Khan-Uul district/
D.Baasansuren /Secondary school №38/
D.Tuvshinbayar /Complex school Erdmiin-Undraa/
S.Тuul /Secondary school №9/
Ts.Adilkhishig /Secondary school №35/
G.Оyun-Erdene /Secondary school №74/
Ts.Оdsuren /Secondary school №18/
Z.Dolgorsuren /Secondary school №16/
H.Batkhuu /Secondary school №2/
D.Baigalmaa /Secondary school №42/
G.Narantuya /Secondary school №4, Sukhbaatar district/
D.Аltangerel /High school Shine-Mongol, teacher/
D.Ganbold /Secondary school №84, Bayan-Zurkh district, teacher/
Î.Ìunkhchandmani /Secondary school №111, Bayan-Zurkh district, primary teacher/
H.Ìunkhjargal /Teachers Colledge/
U.Ìyagmarsuren /Teachers Colledge/
B.Îyunchimeg /Secondary school №1, Govisumber aimag, primary teacher/
D.Ìunkhzul /Complex school Golomt, Nalaikh district, primary teacher/

Yo.Bayarmaa /Complex school Golomt, Nalaikh district, primary teacher/
Preparation of National Assessment Specialist Seminar Attendants from the Capital, Training
Managers
B.Enkhtuya /Secondary school №88/

R.Аmgalan /Secondary school №53/
B.Sodnombaljir /Secondary school №44/
B.Narantuya /Complex school Erdmiin Urguu/
О.Tsetsgee /Secondary school №47/
G.Chandmaa /Secondary school №54/
J.Hishigt /Secondary school №58/
B.Gerelsaikhan /Secondary school №24/
G.Tsolmon /Secondary school №61/
B.Dolgormaa /Secondary school №105/
B.Аltantsetseg /Complex school Ireedui/
Ts.Enkhtuya /Secondary school №75/
Т.Мyagmartseren /Complex school Tsetsee gun/
Took Part in the Study
B.Аsemgul /Secondary school №1, Sukhbaatar district, teacher/

B.Zulmira /Secondary school №20, Bayangol district, teacher/
О.Badraa /Huvsgul aimag, teacher/
D.Gereltsetseg /Govisumber aimag, teacher/
Ts.Buyangerel /Secondary school №39, teacher/
Ts.Dondogmaa /Govisumber aimag, teacher/
Sh.Munkhtsetseg /Hantaishir Institute, lecture/
D.Baigalmaa /Secondary school №106, teacher/
Ch.Enkhtuya /Secondary school №1, teacher/
J.Baigali /Secondary school №17, teacher/
Ts.Оdsuren /Secondary school №18, teacher/

6.2 GLOSSARY
 RASH model - an analysis model which examines distribution of item difficulty levels with the
distribution of performance of students by referring them onto same scaled scoring;
 Blueprint – detailed information about each item;
 SOLO taxonomy – theory by Biggs, Collos (1982), the taxonomy’s main purpose is how to define a
quality and results developing of students ability and performance;
 StudentScoreEntry – information about student scores;
 StudentInfo- data registering and entering tool of student information;
 ConQuest –researching program for items. (Wu, Adams & Wilson, 1998)
 1L, 2L, 3L, 4L, 5L – levels of SOLO Taxonomy;
 AD, BD, CD, DD, CDD – abbreviations to indicate domains in mathematics and reading;
 Claster –items version of part;

6.3 REFERENCE
1. Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. 2004. Recommendation of Standard of Primary and
Secondary Eduvation. Ulaanbaatar
2. Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. 2004. Recommendation of Standard of Primary Education.
Ulaanbaatar
3. Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. 2004. Standard of Primary Education Of Mathematics.
Ulaanbaatar
4. Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. 2004. Standard of Primary Education Of Mongolian
Language. Ulaanbaatar
5. TIMSS-1999, TIMSS-2003 Technical Report. 2000, 2004
6. Boston College. 2006. PIRLS 2006 International Report. USA
7. Ministry of Education. 2000. Monitoring Of Learning Achievement of 4th and 8th Grade. Ulaanbaatar
8. Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. 2005. Assessment Of Primary Education Learning
Achievement-2005.. Ulaanbaatar
9. Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. 2007. Assessment Of Secondary Education Learning
Achievement-2007.. Ulaanbaatar
10. Education Evaluation Center.2006. National Assessment Of Students Achievement. Ulaanbaatar
11. Save The Children of Great Britian. 2005. The Education Of Kazakh Children - Brief Report of Survey,
Analysis of Children Educational Condition

6.4 WEB
1. www.mecs.pmis.gov.mn
2. www.iea.nl
3. www.eec.mn
4. http://www.savethechildren.mn
5. http://www.mongoleducation.mn
6. http://www.mongolianlaws.mn
7. http://www.forum.mn
8. http://www.unen.mn
9. www. mea.org.mn
10. www.timss.edu
11. www.worldbank.org

6.5 PHOTOS
The minister of Education culture and science O.Enhktuvshin, chairman of authority of professional education
R.Bat-Erdene and the director of EEC Ts. Oyunsaikhan have signed the contract of the project. (The
representatives of the ministry of education, culture and science, World Bank and EEC. Ulaanbaatar. 23-nov-2006)
In range of the project a four stroke seminar that provides the specialists of the national assessment was organized.
During the elementary seminar chairman the authority of supervisory, research and assessment of Ministry of
Education, Culture and Science M.Baasanjav, international advisor prof. Kelvin Gregory, The director of EEC Ts.
Oyunsaikhan, Specialist of authority of primary and middle education D.Altantsetseg and the Translators
(Complex Nuht 20-22-Feb2008)
A Four stroke seminar that provides the specialists of the national assessment was organized.
(The participants of elementary seminar. Feb.2008)
Item writing team members are shown with international and national consultants.

The methodologist of the primary education in the authority of Education and Culture of Aimags, who were the
leaders of the survey team in their aimags, national advisor of the project, Specialists of EEC, team members of the
project.
( Darkhan- Uul aimag , Center Zulzagyn Gol, 9-10- Feb- 2008)
As representative 4750 students of 166 schools have been taken part in the survey. (During the study, 22-april-
2008
The survey is conducted in the range of READ project and involved many schools from countryside than center
schools. Some students are shown with teachers and director. (Mogoi bag, Huvsgul aimag )
After the survey has taken, Kin Bing specialist at WB, Pratik Tandon economist at WB, P.Bat-erdene national
director of the READ project, D.Khishigbuyan coordinator of the READ project are making brief meeting.
About 100 teachers were involved to the elementary seminar that provides the specialists of the national
assessment. During teamwork (Complex Nuht 22-Feb-2008)
About 100 teachers were involved to the elementary seminar that provides the specialists of the national
assessment. During teamwork (3rd seminar. 1-2-oct-2008)

Bizdata - MN Report Eec

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bizdata - MN Report Eec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EDUCATION EVALUATION CENTER

MECS EEC WORLD BANK

RURAL EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

MONGOLIAN NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF

MONGOLIAN NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND READING 1

EDUCATION EVALUATION CENTER OF MONGOLIA

MONGOLIAN NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF

MONGOLIAN NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND READING 2

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION OF NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND READING

Ts. Unurbayan, Ts. Erdenetsetseg, M. Boldsaikhan, D. Erdene, S. Bat-Erdene, D. Altangerel, D. Ganbold,

CHAPTER 2. FINDINGS AND RESULTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF MATEMATICS AND

2.1 Summary of the findings and results of the national assessment

CHAPTER 3. FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT

Ts. Erdenetsetseg, M. Boldsaikhan, J. Bileg-Orshikh, M. Gantuya

3.1 Factors associated with location and population

CHAPTER 4. METHODOLOGY AND APPROACHES OF THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT

M. Boldsaikhan, Ts. Oyunsuren, Kelvin Gregory

MONGOLIAN NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND READING 3

4.5 Quality control/monitoring

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Ts. Unurbayan, D. Monkhor, Ts. Oyunsaikhan, Ts. Erdenetsetseg, M. Boldsaikhan

5.1 Learning achievement of maths and reading

6.1 Research team of members

MONGOLIAN NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND READING 4

DPSE - Department of Primary and Secondary Education

MECS – Ministry of Education, Culture and Science

EEC – Education Evaluation Center

SSE – School of Secondary Education

NITP - National Information Technology Park

SOLO taxonomy - Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes1

PSE- Preschool education

READ - Rural Education and Development Project

UNICEF - The United Nations Children’s Fund

UNESCO - United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization

IEA - The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement

IRT- Item Response Theory

OECD - Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

PIRLS - Progress in International Reading Literacy Study

PISA- Program for International Student Assessment

SPSS - Statistical Package for Social Sciences

TIMSS - Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study

DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION EVALUATION CENTER

MONGOLIAN NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND READING 6

ii. BRIEF SUMMARY OF FINDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF

Graph 1. General Score Distribution

MONGOLIAN NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND READING 8

MONGOLIAN NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND READING 9

Table No. 1. Proposals and Directions of Work to be done

Current Issues Responsible entity Direction of the work to be done Duration

MONGOLIAN NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND READING 10

MONGOLIAN NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND READING 11

CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION OF NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF MATHEMATICS

1.2 NEEDS OF THE ASSESSMENT

MONGOLIAN NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND READING 13

1.3 ADMINISTRATION OF THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT

MONGOLIAN NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND READING 14

Table No.2. Phases in Administration of the Study, Duration

August - November Appointment of teams;

January - July Creation of task item database, conducting of a study;

from September 15 till, Pilot study conducted;

January - March Prepare and finalize survey booklet;

Throughout the project Cooperation with international and national consultants;

April Printing of study materials, allocation and distribution;